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.
There is big difference between author unknown and "i don't know author". Also cause lacking source maybe somebody never had it in his hands and autor is written on the back side. Herr Kriss (talk) 16:47, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
Arabic admin :)
Hi Eusebius
Sorry, but I was really busy the last few weeks. Yes, You are right, the image seems to be copyrighted. The best course of action, as I guess, was already taken. Sorry for the late answer. --Tarawneh (talk) 20:41, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
Done. It seems he just needed another place for his copyvios after ar.wiki deleted the files. Lots of users do that when the files are deleted there. Thanks --Tarawneh (talk) 02:03, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
I don't think it could be either of those. The author/copyright holder of this ad is pretty obvious. And PD-1923 does not work, because it is a German poster. It was certainly created in Germany and is thus not free in the country of origin. Regards, -- ChrisiPK(Talk|Contribs)15:10, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
I think PD-1923 is applicable, but it is not sufficient (valid only for the US, valid German license remaining to be determined). Author and copyright holder are really not obvious to me, but maybe you can propose a more adapted license (if a firm/organization published it around 1911 and had copyright on it at the time, I'm pretty sure it can be PD-old in some way, but I can't find a proper reference in the available PD tags, and I'm really not a specialist of German copyright laws). --Eusebius (talk) 15:20, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
Copyright lasts for 70 years after death of the creator. As this poster is an advertisement for a company, we can assume that the company holds the copyright to it. Thus the only needed attribution is the company's name which is written on it in big letters. We would need to make inquiries at the company whether the copyright has expired or whether they agree to license it under a free license. Only the fact that it is from 1911 is not sufficient to make it PD-old. PD-old without any proof of death of the author can only be assumed for works which are very old, meaning early or mid 19th century. Regards, -- ChrisiPK(Talk|Contribs)15:34, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
Is the creator the company or the human? If it is the company, then your formulation about copyright duration cannot apply. If it is the human, then for the moment, creator is unknown... About the company, apparently the Maschinnenfabrik Esslingen was bought by Daimler AG. In any case, I'm not saying I'm right anyway, I don't know and I leave it to you (and when I'm wrong, I like to understand why). I'm a bit ill-at-ease with the copyright status of works published by organizations, not individuals (if you have links...). --Eusebius (talk) 15:53, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
A creator is always human (how can a company create something without a human being involved?). This creator has obviously been employed by the company (why would he make an ad for them otherwise?). Surely, as part of his contract, he transferred his copyright on the poster to the company. This means that the company holds the copyright to the ad, which will expire 70 years after the death of the creator. As we cannot be sure that the creator has died at least 70 years ago (1911 is not odl enough), we need to ask the company who created it. Just the fact that the author himself is unknown does not qualify for anonymous work, as we have a company with a pretty good copyright claim on this and I don't see a reason to doubt their claim. Regards, -- ChrisiPK(Talk|Contribs)17:35, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
Hi Eusebius, my comment was due to the effect the shutter speed had on the image's lighting. At 1/2000 f7.6 the camera will expose backgrounds well only in very bright (sun) light - all the non-flashed parts of the image are very dark emphasizing the flash. If he had kept the aperture and dropped the speed down to say 1/60 it may have brought detail into the background and allowed the camera to not operate the flash at full power, with a corresponding drop in the over-flashed look and resulting hard-edged shadows. I expect that at the 3pmish time of the shot, even indoors, they would have been enough light to get a better result for the background and shadows this way. - Peripitus (talk) 00:36, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
Hi, I'm sorry for the removal of your problem tags because I thought I've offered enough. It's clearly that most of potraits on the image are old Chinese paintings or photos of early 20th century, so I added Template:PD-old-70. As for the modern people, I added Template:cc-by-2.0, Template:PD-USGov-NASA these templates to notify their sources.--Symane (talk) 12:31, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
Hi, thanks for your work and for taking the time to put the license tags. I'm afraid it's not enough though. Images on Commons must have a valid source, and for derivative works such as this one, every single image should have its own. (See File:Basque_people.png, File:Brasileiros.jpg or File:British Irish.png for good examples). I know it's not a funny job... A single line per image (with an URL and a word on the copyright status) should be enough. About the license tag: I think you shouldn't add them directly to your picture, your work may have its own license tags (the Flickr tag or the NASA tag, for instance, cannot apply to your collage). If I have time and if you want me to, I'll give you a hand (today or tomorrow, say). --Eusebius (talk) 12:45, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
I'm afraid File:Jiangxi_people.jpg may not reach the same level than images that you listed, because quite many old paintings haven't yet been uploeded on Wikicommons, and it's probably that those ancient persons even dont't have articles on English Wikipedia. This image has already cost me much time to create it, so I don't I have more energy to upload massive images at present.--Symane (talk) 13:34, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
You don't need to upload them, and the guys don't need to have an article on their own. But for an old painting, for instance, you can tell the painter (if known), the date, from which book (or other source) you fetched it and whether it is PD-art (for instance). No need to upload more stuff. --Eusebius (talk) 13:49, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
I'm afraid not. It's very useful to have the names of the guys, but legally speaking, what we need is the source of the illustrations (it's OK for the ones with the URLs). We need the name of an artist, the date (even if approximative) and where you got the picture (ref of the book, for instance). --Eusebius (talk) 14:36, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
I'm afraid this picture is copyrighted and cannot be used here on Commons, where rules are more strict than on local Wikipedias. You should remove the picture from the collage, or replace it with some other. --Eusebius (talk) 14:41, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
I'm sorry I don't own details of the images. But these old paintings can easily trace back to their creation date, they were surely painted in ancient times. So I dont't think it's worth to detail further.
Now that Wiki Commons doesn't share the same rules with Wikipedia, I may recreate a new image later. Thanks.--Symane (talk) 14:58, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
I'm convinced the paintings are PD-old, but it is not enough for Commons, we need the precise stuff. I think you should upload the picture locally on the Wikipedia where you want to use it, if you can. Here it will be deleted. --Eusebius (talk) 15:23, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
Is PD-old and from before 1907.haabet 15:58, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
Would be PD-old without any doubt if we knew the date of death of the creator. Do you have his name, at least? Anyway, I restore the file and nominate it for a normal deletion, so that you can have your word since you contest deletion. --Eusebius (talk) 16:03, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the notice. I will have a look at the picture. If legal info is missing, I will tag them and they will be deleted after 7 days, unless info is provided. --Eusebius (talk) 09:23, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
I will not close the deletion request myself, I leave the decision to an admin with more experience with (Russian) copyright issues. Deletion requests remain open for seven day when the deletion is not obvious. --Eusebius (talk) 19:46, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
Image upload enquiry
hi, I am a newbie for Wikipedia, I am trying to edit a page by replacing some new screenshots. But my image is kept deleted, as it is copyright violidated. I feel sorry about that. But I am not quite understand why there are some screenshot approved before but not mind. Please take a look at this. It is actually the old version of our software screenshot. Would you mind to share the method of how to upload this kind of screenshot?Sleeperboy (talk) 10:04, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
Hi, thank you for your message (and thanks for caring about doing things the proper way). I'm afraid it is not possible tu upload a screenshot of your software, unless it has been released with a free license (like GPL). You can read details here (I should have provided the link in the deletion summaries). If you're responsible for the edition of this software, you may find a way though, for instance by declaring on your official website that you license all screenshots produced with your software under a free license. You can find a list of acceptable licenses here. Apart from the copyright issue, your screenshots might be flagged as "promotional material" and deleted even if they have a proper license. This may depend on whether your software passes the criteria for inclusion in a Wikipedia encyclopaedia, for instance. I hope this helps. Regards, Eusebius (talk) 10:47, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
Post-scriptum about your link: I am totally unable to read Chinese, but you should know that copyrighted stuff sometimes can be uploaded on the local Wikipedias even though they cannot be hosted on Commons: the rules are more strict here on Commons and the policies depend on the local projects. --Eusebius (talk) 10:49, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
Then you have to provide Commons with a proper authorization to disclose it under a free license, authorizing (among other things) modifications and commercial use. The procedures are described here. Also, please sign your messages (with four tildes)! Regards, --Eusebius (talk) 13:41, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
Eusebius, soy el Usuario:MambaVerde, autor del artículo Fierabrás, del que retiraste la imagen: File:Rolandandferragut.jpg.
Esa imagen está sacada de la Wikipedia in English, quiero recuperarla para mi artículo, te pido por favor que me ayudes y hagas las gestiones necesarias para subirla a Commons en Español, pues yo no sé hacerlo, ya que soy nuevo en Wikipedia. Espero noticias. Hasta la vista.--MambaVerde (talk) 22:27, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
Hola. Gracias por tu mensaje, pude encontrar las informaciones necesarias en la Wikipedia en Inglés. La imagén esta disponible de nuevo y puedes utilizarla en tu articulo. --Eusebius (talk) 22:32, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
Bonjour. Je rédige actuellement l'article Wikipédia FR d'une société française, mais j'avoue avoir vraiment du mal au niveau des différentes licences proposées pour uploader un logo. Laquelle est la plus appropriée ? --Big kik (talk) 10:04, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
It refers obviously to his own catalogue, that I am reconstucting here. The catalogue number of the Brogi firm can be read in the caption beneath each image by the Brogi family, so it is easy to reconstruct it. I already mention its number in each image by the Brogis I am uploading, and I am listing catalogue numbers for all ancient pictures that I find, whenever it is marked. Best wishes. --User:G.dallorto (talk) 23:35, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
If I made a remark, it's because it was not obvious to me (especially the fact that Carlo Brogi's pictures are in Giacomo Brogi's catalogue, you have to know the subject quite well to infer that and I didn't know anything about it before you told me), so maybe I'm not the only one in that case and a few more words in the source field (a link to your catalogue page?) would actually be useful. Regards, --Eusebius (talk) 06:57, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
Hello,
I forwarded the permission I got to the mail address you mentioned in my page, but still the picture is marked for deletion. What else should I do? טוקיוני (talk) 08:10, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
You did it already: contact the admin who gave you the notice (the "no permission" tag has to be removed by an admin). Thank you, I take care of the rest. Regards, --Eusebius (talk) 08:36, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
Et pourtant, c'est une basilique !
Salut,
Je vois que tu as supprimé Category:Église Saint-Nicolas (Nantes) dont j'ai transféré le contenu vers Category:Basilique Saint-Nicolas (Nantes). Je dois bien dire que je lui ignorais cette qualité jusqu'à ce matin, quand j'y suis entré, plus mu par l'intérêt de la connaissance que par une quelconque poussée mystique. Quelle ne fut pas ma surprise de voir l'appellation « Basilique Saint-Nicolas de Nantes » figurer sur les prospectus mis à disposition des visiteurs. Je te rassure, c'est la seule basilique de Nantes (et même de Loire-Atlantique) selon le site officiel.
Eusebius: Small size and no EXIF, I doubt "own work". 21:42, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
Hi Eusebius! OK but how can I prove that that's my work? There are strange rules on Wiki (nothing personal!): one has to prove that he/she is "innocent". Is there somebody who asserts that the picture belongs to him/her? Of course not.
What information is still missing? I added links to the authors user page and original image. Maduixa is the author of that image and the source is her camera. --BokicaK (talk) 20:09, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
I knew this would be questionned :-) Actually, what bothers me is that I can't find a declaration of the user stating that he has taken the picture himself. If he had uploaded it himself on Commons and stated "own work", it would have been clearer. Here, I wonder whether we should ask him for an OTRS authorization. Could you please give me a translation of "Споменик Стеви Филиповићу у Ваљеву"? Maybe it can help. --Eusebius (talk) 20:41, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
Can You give link to the page. I can't find where this image came from. - Jovan Vuković (r) 01:24, 30 June 2007. (CET)
How You can't find the image? And where are You looking for? This is MY image. I wrote it while I was uploading. Didn't I tell You that I have some pictures of Valjevo? Perhaps I didn't choose correct license, but it is GFDL, that is, free. I give it to the Wikipedia .-- Maduixa kaži 10:11, 30 June 2007. (CET)
Hm, I see that there is not written that it is my image. I do not know why it is, but I am sure that I wrote it ...-- Maduixa kaži 10:12, 30 June 2007. (CET)
Yes, it is non written, and if imae is yours, You should put ((GFDL-I)) - Jovan Vuković (r) 15:44, 1 July 2007. (CET)
Well, well. Now I can fix it .-- Maduixa kaži 15:46, 1 July 2007. (CET)
Ah, You did it before me .:)-- Maduixa kaži 15:47, 1 July 2007. (CET)
Thank you from the message. You are more experienced at VI and I trust you. Now back my editing. I hope I did not bad. Lycaon asked for opinions. I greet you. Albertus teolog (talk) 18:19, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
OK... I don't think my greaaat experience in counting votes helps a lot here, though. I was merely thinking aloud... --Eusebius (talk) 21:27, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
The Photo has been released by Paul Barrow under the public Domain, and it has been properly source. Thank you for your interest in defending and advocating good-usage at/of commons. Please, do not hesitate if you need further clarification, although I am very busy in real-life, so I don't promise to answer you so promptly but eventually I will no doubt. Have a good day, and greetings. JohnManuel (talk) 11:15, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
Hi, thanks for your message. I have no doubt about the public domain, but I cannot see any valid source. Do you know anything about the photographer, or about initial publication of the picture? Was it taken from a book or something like that? I'll also ask the original uploader on en:WP. Also, please refrain from removing problem tags. Tagged image actually get re-examined by an admin after 7 days (at least), and he'll remove it (then, or sooner) if the problem is solved. In the meantime, if you really disagree with the tag you can transform it into a deletion request, in order to ask for a wider debate about the picture. Regards, --Eusebius (talk) 11:28, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
Look at this point do what you think is right, Eusebius or whatever is your real name. You make me remember to one monk that have all the time under his hands and habits for dedicate himself to thing otherwise not important. Aren't you one? in any case, I would wait, and please just leave the "issue" at whatever you think is fine. I won't have time now or later to talk back to you. Please, enjoy your life. JohnManuel (talk) 11:42, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
My job as an admin is mainly to take care of these "not important" things, but I understand if you don't want to get involved. --Eusebius (talk) 11:46, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
I am not an expert on framing/cropping images, but I would have thought that in the case of your QI candidate File:Dijon_-_Palais_des_ducs_-_Minerve.jpg that it would be better not to show just the top of the lower windows and not to show the clock with its top cut off. In other words I would crop it somewhere above the lower windows and somewhere below the clock - just the middle strip. --Tony Wills (talk) 07:33, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
I also thought it would be better to get rid of the clock, but I was afraid it would be too tight. I will give it a try, cutting also the sides. Thanks for your comment. --Eusebius (talk) 07:41, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
I wouldn't cut the sides, I'd cut it to a widescreen format, say 16:9 ratio, just below the clock (but keeping the figure supporting the clock), keeping the full width. --Tony Wills (talk) 11:45, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
16/9, overexposed clock out I think I like this when seen full size, not so much as a thumbnail :-)
narrower Too long and thin for my tastes, but I could live with it :-)
close-up on Minerva Not very interesting looking :-(
What do you think? Tried several crops, I think your suggestion (first one, 16/6) is the best. Last one is below 2Mpix. --Eusebius (talk) 21:22, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
I have posted my votes :-). Of course the best idea would be to re-take the shot and include all of the clock (careful not to over-expose) --Tony Wills (talk) 03:20, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
Hi. I see you've had some help from Turelio, so I will only make corrections on the image pages so that they look more ok. If you want me to have a more thorough look or if you have questions, just tell me. Allow me a few remarks:
Historical family pictures are often problematic: they're valuable, but their owners often don't have the legal info which is needed about them, and it is often felt as an attack when we ask for it. So, sorry about that!
As Turelio told you, "source" is where you got the photo from (family pic, scanned from a book, grabbed on a website, or you took the photo yourself). A few words is usually enough, but we need it (as well as the original author and the date of the original work, when possible).
The picture of Catherine Griffin, typically, poses no big problem, because it is very old and we can safely assume that the photographer has been dead for more than 70 years, so it is in the public domain now. In that case, you, as the owner, have no right to release it under a license like GFDL or Creative Commons, and do not need to: it is in the public domain, we can freely use it. The date of the photograph and the {{PD-old}} tag tell us so.
If the photograph is more recent, but it can be safely assumed that you have the rights (i.e. a friend took a photo of your grand-mother, the rights are considered to be transfered to your grand-mother and to her heirs), the picture is not public domain. If you're the only heir, you can decide to release it under the license of your choice. But attention, all heirs should agree on that...
I wish to thank you for your help in correcting the image pages and translating them into French. As to the list of photos you wish to delete, I have commented on my talk page why some should remain, as they are of value. As for the others, if you deem them unworthy of inclusion, I will not take offense. The ones I highlighted, please do reconsider them. Thank you again for your time, help and patience, Eusebius. BTW, the photos you took of various French landmarks are excellent. Cheers.--Jeanne boleyn (talk) 09:07, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
Hi again. To make things clear I do not "wish to delete" images, I have questionned their inclusion in the scope of the Commons project. Probably some of them will be considered in scope and kept and some will be deleted. My aim is not to delete! About your comments, if they are about the request for deletion, they should stay on the deletion request page (and if possible, they should remain short and clear :-). This way, reviewers can easily take them into account in their evaluation of the request. Regards, --Eusebius (talk) 09:15, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
Thanks. I would like you to take a picture of the three rose windows (west, south and north) from the inside, an overview of the cathedral, north facade, west facade, flying buttresses of the nave, flying butresses of the choir and apse, pictures of the interior - nave, choir, crossing and stained glass windows. And again, thank you very much! MathKnight19:13, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
Uploaded files
Franjo Mabić
Hello,
I wrote down source of the files.
It's from my friend's book(on picture).
He is a minister in village "Izbično",and he has pictures from older Izbično ministers.
He gave me the pictures from his camera.
OK, I'll be able to fill the author and source fields properly now. Now we need a permission from him to publish his pictures under a license compatible with Commons guidelines (because he hasn't released them himself). If there is something you don't understand in the process (explained here), please feel free to ask me. For the author's permission, you have an example e-mail here. --Eusebius (talk) 20:31, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
By the way, I think there are other pictures in Category:Izbično, uploaded by you, that come from that book. Could you confirm that and make me a list? Or is it all of them? They must be included in Franjo Mabić's authorization e-mail. Regards, --Eusebius (talk) 20:34, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
Eusebius, I've a question for you. What happens if a photograph was taken by a complete stranger? For instance, I am often stopped in the summer by tourists and asked to take their picture. They never learn my name. So if they were to host the photo I took of them onto Commons, what name would they give for the author?--Jeanne boleyn (talk) 11:01, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
In that case we can assume a transfer of rights from the photographer to the subject (I think this is explicit in the US and UK laws, for instance), just like if the photographer was hired to do the job. I guess something like "picture taken by a passing stranger" would probably be enough :-) --Eusebius (talk) 11:16, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
Photographs of identifiable people again
I have made some changes to Commons:Photographs of identifiable people/Proposal in response to a variety of helpful suggestions that users have made on the talk page. You have already commented there; could I ask you to have a look again, and to consider whether you would like to express an opinion in the Poll towards the bottom of the page? Many thanks. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 18:33, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
Oh, my French is ok, but I'm afraid this one is too complex for me. It is about what kind of law apply to the banknotes of a former French colony, that is, an entity that's not really a country and that doesn't really have a clear successor... I'll look at it again later. --Eusebius (talk) 06:32, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
I wasn't able to do much. Some of the files (currency issued by the current Bank of Algeria) must apparently be deleted because of NC restriction over the works of the State (I'll update Commons:Currency with the info I have). Problematic ones are the banknotes issued under French rule: if we assume Algerian copyright law applies, copyright expires 50 years after the death of the creator (or last creator), but in most cases I couldn't identify him nor find out when he had died. If we consider it is an anonymous or pseudonymous publication, then it's publication + 50 years and they're would be all ok under {{PD-Algeria}}. --Eusebius (talk) 17:08, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the additional information. Unfortunately, the images must remain deleted anyway, because non-commercial versions of Creative Commons license (like non-commercial versions of any license) are not allowed here on Commons. Works must be usable for all purpose, including commercial ones. However, if you know the copyright holder (which is often the photographer, but not always if he was hired) and can get an authorization from him that would be compatible with Commons licensing, please file it properly through the OTRS system and let me know about it. Regards, --Eusebius (talk) 19:26, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
EXIF
EXIF is information that the camera or scanner embeds into images that they make. It can be re-added to modified images, I called it a hack and abused this once (for an obviously collaged couple of images).
http://libexif.sourceforge.net/ is where the software my graphics app uses comes from. I don't know where other applications get theirs from. One of the reasons that I chose Linux over other options was that I didn't want to install redundancies. If Inkscape uses or maintains exif information (for example) it would also be using the same libraries that GIMP uses. At least, a few years back, Windows was not like this and each application that uses that technology would install their own version of software that would access it.</end of preaching>
I would rather volunteer to restore EXIF information for you than to tell you of how to accomplish the hack. It is kind of important that the information comes from the device that made it sometimes, perhaps. -- carol (talk) 15:02, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
Hi, thanks for the info. Actually I was only willing to edit the image page, but I may actually find out how to modify the EXIF info of the picture... one day :-) I was not talking about a specific picture, it was more a general question. --Eusebius (talk) 15:12, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
I have never used exiftool -- so here is the "hack" in spite of that big secret I seemed to need to keep. Open one of the original images in an app that maintains this information. Add the image which was modified by the other application as a layer. With GIMP, the canvas needs to be told to be the size of the new image. Flatten the image and save with the desired file name. I was able to accomplish this with only a small section of the original image last summer sometime here. Too simple for me to need to install and learn how to use new tools. -- carol (talk) 15:25, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
Tools are not evil! Heh. Try playing the game Monopoly(TM) where every property is Windows(TM) and every little red thing you can buy is Windows(TM) and every little green thing you can buy is Windows(TM) and all of the pieces of the game are owned and defined by Windows(TM). I think that there is no reason to play this game. The winner is already defined and it is none of the players. So, for me, Linux was like a new piece that was introduced into this game. It cannot be "owned" so it just runs around, knowing that the game has already been won by the originators and hangs out getting to know the players. It makes a horrible game to be very much more worthwhile in a bigger picture that involves human beings. -- carol (talk) 16:20, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
Fair use
Hi, well, I don´t get what yo mean really. I can´t upload it because it Fair Use and I will publish in Swedish? What should I do then? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Montanus (talk • contribs) 15:10, 12 February 2009 (UTC) (UTC)
Well, apparently, fair use isn't allowed on the Swedish Wikipedia either. So we have few alternatives:
The logo has already been published with a free license by its owner: show me the license and it should be ok.
You are a representative the organization holding the copyright of this logo: we should be able to host the picture, provided you send an authorization to OTRS. A standard e-mail can be found here.
You know the organization and can ask them for the authorization: if they send authorization (same way), we can host the image.
Hey, just asking why you uploaded a new version of this file. I cropped it deliberately to remove the black space, making the band members more prominent. Please consider undoing. Thanks, Garden.12:48, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
Sorry, I didn't see the crop, I thought you had uploaded a downsampled version of the Flickr image. I'll upload the original under a new name. --Eusebius (talk) 13:29, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
The record shows you deleted File:Mangal at Garmsir bazaar.jpg and File:Girl at water tower.JPG.
I looked at one of those images, shortly before you deleted it. I did not see a notice that it was missing information,
or I would have helped the photographer complete its description.
The uploader took the photos himself. I remember the image I looked at had a valid looking {{PD}} lisense on it.
Could you please restore the images, and explain what you thought was missing?
Hi. They were both tagged as missing permission (as stated in the deletion summary), and had remained as such for more than three weeks without any correction from the uploader. The uploader declared himself, at upload time, that the author of the pictures was the "PRT press office", so we would need an authorization from them. I will undelete only if I have information that an authorization from this institution (I guess PRT it is a NATO Provincial Reconstruction Team) has been sent to OTRS. I think it is quite unlikely to happen, because the standard NATO terms of use are too restrictive for Commons. Regards, --Eusebius (talk) 18:39, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
Hello Eusebius, you changed the OTRS template from "OTRS pending" to "permission for this file has been sent". I asked the author and copyright holder to send us a release, but until now I didn't get any answer. Did he really send a release directly to OTRS and if yes, why isn't then the ticket in there instead of the new template? Greetings --Martina Nolte (talk) 12:12, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
Hi. Actually, I made this change only because the formerly used template was invalid for an image (didn't mean anything). I should probably have asked the uploader (I'm not an OTRS volunteer), but I was pretty lazy. I guess that if there is no ticket for it, we should simply remove the OTRS template (it's declared as "own work", no need for OTRS). I remove the template. --Eusebius (talk) 12:18, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
Actually, image page says both "own work" and "Manfred Henf, Mettmann". Apparently, some people on de: have already asked uploader if he was the same person, but couldn't find an answer to that. Maybe OTRS is needed after all. --Eusebius (talk) 12:21, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
Yes, I am checking out his de-images as well. There are some more unclear cases. So, isn't tehre any template a step before "permission has been sent" like for example: "permission has been asked for"? Greets --Martina Nolte (talk) 12:32, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
No, this is the first step. This template is added when the uploader declares that an e-mail has been sent. If an image remains with this template for too long, admins can ask OTRS volunteers whether they have info about it. If not, image can be deleted. I've just seen that you, not the uploader, added the template, so it has basically no value if (as I understand it) you have no information about the uploader sending authorization. In this case, I remove it and flag the image as missing authorization. The file can be deleted in 7 days in the absence of further info. I'm sorry, I've been a bit sloppy on this case! --Eusebius (talk) 12:41, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
Authorship info is really borderline on these two pics, I'm a bit ill-at-ease. Could you confirm they were taken in a public place? Are the pics really that valuable? Plus, again, please do not remove problem tags, unless you transform them into a deletion request in order to trigger a wider debate. --Eusebius (talk) 22:25, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
I wouldn't call it a consensus. Deletion could be questionned only if it is clear that the map was in a public place, and you didn't answer this question. Also, I tend to make a lot of mistakes these days so I suggest you file an undeletion request. --Eusebius (talk) 21:19, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
Question on assumptions
When you get the chance, would you please take a look at these two images File:Frederick W. Hinitt 1866-Centre.jpg and File:Frederick W. Hinitt 1866-W&J.jpg. These are official college portraits from his tenure as college president for 2 colleges. The subject died in 1927, but had retired from academia by 1918, so I think it is safe to assume that both are pre-1923, and therefore qualify as PD-old/PD-Art. Care to check out these licenses to make sure they look OK?--PhiloMcGiffen (talk) 02:06, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
Hi. Actually, they're both PD-US, and not PD-Old: PD-old implies the author has been dead for more than 70 years, which is not the case here (or we don't know it). Since they were published in the US before 1923, theyre {{PD-US}}, which is sufficient here. PD-art is always based on another PD license (like PD-old or PD-old-100), but I don't think it applies here: we can consider that we're really talking about the photograph, and not a reproduction of the photograph. I'm ok with the assumptions about dates. --Eusebius (talk) 11:12, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
The {{PD-US-no notice}} pictures look ok, but I'm worried about the following ones:
At least some of them are photographs of paintings (maybe some of them are just photographs, in this case it would be ok, but at this image size I cannot tell). Paintings themselves are PD-old, but the photographs cannot be PD-art, because the original is coloured and the photographs are BW. Since we don't know the date of the photographs, it is impossible to assign them a proper copyright status. What do you think? --Eusebius (talk) 08:51, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
Well, even if they are B&W photos of color PD-old paintings, I don't think that would give rise to copyright protection in the photographs. Only "artistic expression" is copyrightable--and the only real difference between the B&W photo and the color painting is the color, which doesn't seems like "artistic expression." So, as long as the paintings are PD, these photos would also be PD. Sound right to you?--PhiloMcGiffen (talk) 15:25, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
I agree that they should be PD, but not PD-Art since it is not a "faithful" representation. So, PD-old for the 19th century ones, PD-1923 or PD-US-no-notice for the others, depending on the dates. OK? --Eusebius (talk) 18:29, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
At first sight, I'd say neither FP nor QI, because they're way too small. For VI, it is needed that the subject is notable enough. If one of them appears to have an article in a Wikipedia, for instance, why not (provided the six criteria are fulfilled). --Eusebius (talk) 06:53, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
Salut, est-ce qu'il y a une raison précise pour laquelle tu as fait cette modif ? S'il n'y en a pas, je suggère qu'on la reverte, parce que les numéros de paramètres gênent QICbot (dans son implémentation actuelle) lorsqu'il génère d'autres templates (QICpromoted, notamment) avec un nombre de paramètres différents. Du coup, les nominateurs reçoivent des templates buggés sur leur page de discussion. --Eusebius (talk) 13:52, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
Salut, j'ai remarqué (mais je n'ai pas de diff exact pour donner des exemples, mon nombre de contributions est un peu chargé pour faire une recherche) que les votants signant avec une signature contenant le symbole « = » faisaient planter le modèle et empêchaient les autres personnes à voter. Que préconiserais-tu ? On enlève cette modification, ou on contacte Dschwen (talk·contribs) ? →Ditithepenguin — 18:32, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
Bon bah puisque tu dupliques ici, je réponds ici. C'est bien ce que je craignais : il y avait bien une raison :-P Je ne sais pas ce qui est le mieux dans l'immédiat, je ne suis pas assez calé en templates pour ça. L'idéal ce serait que Dschwen rende QICbot plus robuste, mais il a l'air assez occupé IRL en ce moment. Mais bon, peut-être qu'il en a juste marre que je lui demande des trucs, ptet que si c'est toi il sera plus dispo ;-) J'aurais quand même tendance à dire qu'en attendant, il vaudrait mieux revenir aux paramètres non numérotés, en nettoyant COM:QIC au coup par coup en cas de problème, plutôt que d'exporter les erreurs dans les pages de discussions des photographes. --Eusebius (talk) 18:40, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
Hi, this file is the cover of a quite recent book, and it is most likely protected by copyright. Unless you are the copyright holder of this illustration (or unless you can get an authorization from the copyright holder), we cannot host it on Commons. I hope I have answered your question, otherwise please be more precise. --Eusebius (talk) 18:48, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
I'm not sure I fully understand you (you may want to deal with a russian-speaking admin), but:
If you're the designer of the cover, or if the designer has transfered copyright to you by contract, then you should send an authorization e-mail to the OTRS system, to ensure that we are aware of this fact and that your declaration is duly recorded. There is an example of such an e-mail here. It must precise which file you're talking about, and under which license you want it to be released. You should be aware that it means your work can be used freely by anybody. It includes the right to modify the work, or to use it for commercial purpose. As soon as you send the e-mail, tell me and I will restore the image with the proper info (no need to upload again).
If you only own a copy of the album, you don't own the right over it.
If the e-mail is sent, I restore the picture. When you send an OTRS e-mail, you can add {{OTRS pending}} to the image file to let us know. Processing of an OTRS e-mail can take up to one month. Regards, --Eusebius (talk) 19:42, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
I'll try to find the website where I originally got the image. However, the image comes from Harper's Weekly and was published in 1894 in the Unites States. This is clearly in the public domain since it was published in a major publication before 1923.--Bkwillwm (talk) 22:23, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
Well, don't bother, the status of the picture isn't questionned anymore. To me, the source info we have is now precise enough. --Eusebius (talk) 06:46, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
I did some investigating on the user. He hasn't had any contributions since August 13, 2007 so I wouldn't count on hearing back from him. Also, when he first became a user in August 2006 he uploaded 12 pictures, all of the Hopkins campus (or lacrosse). Two have been deleted, however they were logos without fair use rationale. All his photos were released with PD-self and so we have no reason to believe he did not take this picture unless you can find it from some other source. --Yarnalgo (talk) 21:50, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
Well, I can trust you on his uploads being consistent and believable. But still, this is a small picture, with EXIF data removed, from a guy apparently caring about his college's image, with no explicit authorship declaration from the uploader... --Eusebius (talk) 22:06, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
Je suis assez nouveau sur Commons et tu sembles t'y connaitre, c'est pourquoi je m'adresse à toi. Tu as de plus de nombreuses décorations pour tes immages. Je me demandais quelle était la différence entre les Quality Image et les Valued Images ? Cordialement Ascaron (talk) 19:57, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
Des "décorations" ? Je crois pas... ;-) Alors les images de qualité, ce sont des images qui sont reconnues comme étant d'une bonne qualité technique, au-dessus d'un certain standard (les critères de qualité pour les images). Les images de valeur sont des illustrations qui sont considérées comme les plus utiles (valuables) dans un contexte (scope) donné. Par exemple, la meilleure image disponible représentant la Tour Eiffel. Il y a six critères à remplir pour une images de valeur. Typiquement, une image de valeur n'est pas forcément d'une qualité technique irréprochable, mais ça doit tout de même être la plus intéressante disponible. Tu trouveras des infos utiles sur les pages de candidatures pour les images de qualité et les images de valeur. Je t'ai donné des liens vers les pages en anglais parce que je suis un peu flemmard et pressé, mais tu trouveras une traduction en français pour la plupart (les liens vers les traductions sont sous les titres des pages). Je suis désolé, je n'ai pas beaucoup de temps pour te répondre en détail aujourd'hui, mais n'hésite pas à me recontacter en cas de besoin/question. --Eusebius (talk) 21:22, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
I don't understand, why do you mark as "no source". It is old black-white photographic film which I store in my home archive. You can even see moiré pattern on the left-center (effect of scanning deformed film on flat scanner) and scratches on negative (most noticeable in right top). It is properly descripted, tagged and licensed. As the heir of my father I am the owner of copyright for this picture, and I decided to give it as Public Domain. Julo (talk) 16:55, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
Hi. I tagged it as "no source" because the authorship declaration is really not clear: who take the picture? Your father took it? (No need to give names) --Eusebius (talk) 17:27, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
Author:HZ, Source: home archive, License:PD-heirs. It is 100% clear, nothing more needed. For Wikimedia-Commons it is unimportant if it was grandfather, father, mother, brother or whoever. Just for your inquisitiveness: it was my father. Julo (talk) 20:34, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
Sorry, I must say that I had not seen the PD-heirs, but you will agree that "HZ" does not tell much. Plus, PD-user says that you're the author, I guess it should be removed. --Eusebius (talk) 20:47, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
It was rather impossible you had not seen the "PD-heirs", this tempate is there all the time and above "PD-user". Another problem - it is very pity, but this "PD-user" template is not quite clever and it is not my fault. This template should mean, who is the owner of copyright; very often author=owner, but not in this case. If I delete "PD-user", next time another admin will ask me: "if you are not the author of this picture, send an acceptation from the heir of author via OTRS" and it would be rather not very wise. That is the reason I decided to use both templates: PD-heirs and PD-user. But first of all: rather let us trust each other, don't suspect at every step. Before you put another warning somewhere, check uploader's contribution - here, on Commons, and on mother-Wikipedia. I stop watching your discussion page, so don't answer to me here. EOT. Good night! Julo (talk) 22:35, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
I didn't say the template was not there, I said I didn't see it. And I don't think we should look at legal info based on the uploaders' contributions: mistakes happen. --Eusebius (talk) 07:01, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
No, I don't know Paris well enough. The only thing I can tell is that the big pointy thing is the Eiffel tower, and that the picture is probably a good candidate for {{FoP-France}}, because of the building on the left. --Eusebius (talk) 07:01, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
Bonjour, comme cette page est protégée, je fais appel à tes bons services. En effet, j'ai repéré un bout qui reste en anglais dans le texte et qu'il faudrait donc supprimer : "La position officielle de la Fondation Wikimedia est que is that « les représentations [...]". Merci de faire le nécessaire. Bien cordialement, Matth97 (talk) 15:30, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
I request that you kindly undelete the following file: Paul_wiki.jpg because when I first posted the file I did not include the appropriate license. If you can help me undelete the deleted file or let me know how I can carry out this task, I will promptly add the appropriate license to the image. Thanks in advance for your help. --Schoolbusdriver85 (talk) 00:10, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
Hi, Eusebius. Notifying a bot of image sourcing problems isn't all that helpful. When you find a problem with a file uploaded by Magnus's bot, you should ideally contact either the original uploader on the source wiki, or minimally the person who activated the bot operation via CommonsHelper or Flickr2Commons. Thanks. =) Powers (talk) 03:50, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
Hi. The bot is notified automatically by the script we use to tag the picture, and these notifications are ignored. About the "movers", I expect them to watch the images they have moved, but maybe it is unreasonable, depending on the mover's activity and the moving method. About the original uploaders, I'm simply not going to work cross-wiki for every single image I tag which was missing info at the original upload (and uploaders are not always coming from an english-speaking project). I do it in specific cases, namely when "own work" has been assumed on the source project but must be explicitly confirmed on Commons, or when the image is widely used, or has been given some award. Anyway, I've heard your remark, and even though I'm not going to fully comply with it, I'll take it into account. --Eusebius (talk) 07:58, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
Hello Eusebius, I wondered the same about the Esnoga, so I had a look on wikipedia and it appears that its official name is "the Portuguese Synagogue" (dutch: Portugees-Israëlietische Synagoge), while it's Ladino name is "the Esnoga" or "the Amsterdam Esnoga". Regards, Vincent Steenberg (talk) 13:16, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
Interesting to see this image again now (after seeing it at QIC when it was there). The person who this statue is of had a whole episode of one of my favorite television programs devoted to him. From season three of Northern Exposure http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Northern_Exposure_episodes#Season_3:_.281991-1992.29 "The Body In Question". Every episode of this program especially from the first few seasons is at least good (or very good), in my opinion. Several episodes are considered by me to be extremely good to perfect. The episode about Pierre was one of the latter to me.
And, if you manage to see this episode and enjoy it; I recommend the book "Another Roadside Attraction" by Tom Robbins http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Another_Roadside_Attraction . Often too ponderous and self-absorbed (as was the era it was written in and about), I skipped most of the last third of this tome -- the Northern Exposure episode actually successfully encapsulated that section that had been so incredibly boring to read. -- carol (talk) 21:26, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
Well, thanks for the cultural notice! I didn't know about Northern Exposure, but only few American TV programs reach us. I'm not a big TV fan, but if I get the opportunity to see it (or maybe to get a copy of it with, say, an "alternative copyright status"), I'll give it a chance! About the book, well, you don't seem so much enthusiastic about it, so I'll stick to the classics for the moment :-) About the image, I promise I won't nominate it anymore anywhere! --Eusebius (talk) 21:40, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
Heh, I am wondering how long it takes to be considered a classic. That author is a joy to read -- this his first novel and me skipping one third or more of it is the exception. He writes very much in american english and I heard a review once that praised him for his paragraphs. It was an excellent review that told me what was so good about what I had read. The television show aired in the early 1990s here, so it may not be available again via broadcast. Not very much of the United States television is worthy of international praise. There are a few works which make me morn what seems to be the death of good writing. Both that book and that television show make me feel that loss.
Merci beaucoup!. You have some lovely images of France and it made me feel quite guilty. I have a few from last year that I still have not uploaded - from Vercors & Auvergne. I must make the effort soon. Regards --Herbytalk thyme12:29, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the kind comment and for your future uploads! You have yourself very nice pictures of places I know well, but which I have never visited with a camera... --Eusebius (talk) 17:41, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
I like France a lot & will be there again this year so I hope there will be more photos soon. I enjoyed looking at yours - some places I knew & some were new to me. Regards --Herbytalk thyme17:47, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
Ça ne fait pas longtemps que j'ai commencer a faire des traduction du Turc vers le français et vis versas.
Concernant les photos que j'ai télécharger pouvez-vous svp effacé/élliminer toutes mes photos non conforme. Je ne téléchargerai plus que mes propres images. Mais est ce que vous pouvez me dire comment je pourrai prendre les images deja prévues sur les pages Turc, et comme les rediffuser sur les pages françaises
Si vous n'êtes pas sûr, vous pouvez me donner un lien vers les images et on en discute. Que voulez-vous faire exactement, maintenant ?
Vous voulez transférer sur Commons des images qui ont été téléchargées sur la Wikipédia turque ? Si oui donnez-moi les liens, je vérifie et je vous explique comment faire (toutes les images des Wikipedias ne peuvent pas être transférées sur Commons). Un mode d'emploi basique en anglais est disponible ici.
Vous voulez utiliser sur Wikipédia des illustrations disponibles autre part sur le net ? Dans la plupart des cas c'est interdit, sauf si l'illustration a été publiée sous une licence libre.
Vous voulez utiliser une illustration qui est complètement votre travail, pas de problème, vous avez le choix de la licence.
Vous voulez utiliser une oeuvre dérivée ? Attention, il faut que l'oeuvre originale soit publiée sous une licence libre, sinon vous ne pouvez pas ! C'est ce qui posait problème dans vos illustrations.
Expliquez-moi précisément ce que vous voulez faire, donnez-moi un exemple si vous voulez que je vous file un coup de main. Cordialement, --Eusebius (talk) 09:00, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
Hochgeladene Bilder von Bauer Karl
Hallo
alle von dir angeführten hochgeladenen Bilder haben eine Zustimmung des Autors bzw. Inhabers. Dies wurde per e-Mail beim hochladen mitgesendet.
Bitte dich um Kontrolle.
--Bauer Karl (talk) 08:53, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
Salut! je trouve ça bien de faire des descriptions avec des liens, ça fait un moment que j'en fait mais c'est sympa quand on voit d'autres en faire! Merci. Otourly (talk) 13:25, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
La légende est toujours utile car quand la photo intéresse la personne se pose des questions sur ce que c'est. Et comme on peut pas trop développer la description les liens sont efficaces. parfois je met également des liens vers le wiktionnaire (wikt:fr:) je pense que si je vois des actualités je mettrais aussi sur n:fr et cætera... Otourly (talk) 14:17, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
Chant du monde, Claude Verlinde
This file was deleted by you. I am sure the source was OK. Just to have my mind in peace, could you please give me the URL of the source? I will be happy to see what I did wrong. --189.151.36.54 14:07, 8 March 2009 (UTC) --Joaquín Martínez Rosado (talk) 14:08, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
Hi. It is not a source problem, it is a license problem. Claude Verlinde is still alive, and he his the copyright holder for his own works, which will be protected until 70 years after his death. Unless we have an explicit authorization from him to do so, we cannot host a representation of his work under a free license. --Eusebius (talk) 14:12, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
Thank you so much for your prompt reply. I remember that the source give permission to use the image. That is why I would like to have the URL in order to see my mistake. --Joaquín Martínez Rosado (talk) 14:22, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
The source is just "Base de la galerie" (database of the gallery), with the gallery not specified (and no URL). Anyway, they would have no right to release a photograph under a free license without the permission of the painter. Only when the (two-dimensional) work is public domain can you grab a photo on the internet and tag it as {{PD-art}}. Otherwise, we need authorization from the copyright holders. --Eusebius (talk) 14:37, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
I understand, thank you for your time.
About Maximilien Luce, he died in 1941; in 1991 (50 years later) his works enter in the public domain. The actual low in France says:
4 - La durée de protection
Selon l’article L.123-1 du CPI : « L’auteur jouit, sa vie durant, du droit exclusif d’exploiter son œuvre sous quelque forme que ce soit et d’en tirer un profit pécuniaire ». La protection persiste au profit de ses ayants droit pendant l’année civile en cours et les soixante-dix ans qui suivent la mort de l’auteur (Loi du 27 mars 1997).LA PROTECTION PAR LE DROIT D’AUTEUR
I am sorry to inform you that this law was partly retroactive (article 16-III of the law you reference). I didn't know about it (thank you for the info), but I've just checked, apparently it made a lot of noise in France in 1997... --Eusebius (talk) 15:29, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
No problem (& no rush at all). I thought as you had uploaded one or two in that area that you might know more than me! Regards --Herbytalk thyme15:30, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
Actually I've been to this very lake once, but I didn't know the town in the Vercors. I'll add French descriptions and check categories, but it looks pretty ok. --Eusebius (talk) 18:54, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
Haha, I didn't mean to do that. I must of got an edit-conflict and thought I just hit preview instead of save. I wasn't questioning your classification. I just put it under horns because the word ends in "horn". :) Rocket000(talk)02:41, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
Je souhaite supprimer une image (création personnelle pour illustrer un article de statistique, créée hier et plus utilisée) : lien. Je suppose que je ne peux pas le faire pour des raisons de droits.
Sinon, petite question concernant les licences (que j'aurais du poser avant de mettre cette image sur commons) : ce type d'image est-il une création personnelle (une copie d'écran du tableur OpenOffice.org) ?
Bonjour. Effectivement, seuls les administrateurs peuvent supprimer des fichiers. Je ne vais pas supprimer le tien, car il est encore utilisé dans l'article fr:Analyse de la variance (par contre, une description, sur la page du fichier, de ce qui est représenté dans le tableau, même courte, même en français, serait appréciable). Concernant ta question, j'imagine que les données représentées sont le fruit de ton travail, donc oui c'est une création personnelle. Par contre, tu ne peux la publier sous une licence libre (et donc la mettre sur Commons) que si tous les logiciels et éléments visibles dans l'image sont eux-mêmes libres de droits. Ici, OpenOffice.org est distribué sous la licence LGPL (qui est acceptée sur Commons), donc pas de problème (note la modification que j'ai faite au fichier pour préciser ceci). N'hésite pas à me recontacter si tu as des soucis/questions/doutes sur Commons. Cordialement, --Eusebius (talk) 13:25, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
Décidément c'est pas mon jour... j'ai importer une image sans modifier le nom du fichier (lien que j'ai réimporté avec le nom correct lien). Il faudrait supprimer la première. Désolé du dérangement. Gbdivers (talk) 13:31, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
Pas de problème. Dans ce cas-là, lorsque ce n'est pas urgent de supprimer, tu peux juste appliquer {{bad name|nom correct}} sur l'image à supprimer (après avoir téléchargé sous le nom correct). --Eusebius (talk) 13:40, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
Et j'ai supprimer l'image du tableur de l'article français, donc il est possible de l'effacer maintenant. Merci beaucoup Gbdivers (talk) 13:32, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
Hello Eusebius,
please send your real-name, your wikiname, your Freenode-nick (if you have one), your prefered login-name and the public part of your ssh-key to . We plan to create your account soon then. --DaB. 23:41, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
File:Uelte-logo.jpg
Hallo Eusebius!
Sorry that you had trouble with the picture but now i have a question:
Our company has the appointment to make the wikipedia-entry for Ültje.
Certainly they want to show their logo. Could you say me what i have to do now?
I want to upload the image but under which terms of license must i upload the picture? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Webmatch (talk • contribs) 13:26, 12 March 2009 (UTC) (UTC)
Hi. If the company is ok with its logo being released under a free license (allowing for derivative works, modifications, commercial use and so on), then they should send an e-mail (model here) stating that to the OTRS system (procedure here). It's all explained in the links, tell me if something is still not clear. --Eusebius (talk) 07:57, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
next 3 images from Paris
After our discussion about PD-heirs/PD-user templates, I have arranged new template - {{PD-heirs-Julo}} - which solves a problem with pictures shot by my father years ago. During my exploration of home archives I found next 3 images from Paris (ca. 1965). All three are on the same film, one after another, i.e. probably shot from the same place. Would you be so kind and ask somebody from Paris for help in identifying this point?...
I hope you haven't modified the templates because of me, it was clearly my mistake (and I'm not sure creating per-user license templates is a good solution, but well...). About the pics, these are views taken from the Arc de Triomphe de l'Étoile. I have pointed the three recent pictures we have that match best the point of view of your photographs. I don't have time right now to document and geotag the pictures, but I will actually do it some time. --Eusebius (talk) 15:48, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
I made new template not because of you, but I just wanted to make my father's works licensed as precisely as possible. Regarding Paris - thank you for this collation. Julo (talk) 09:34, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
I have marked my pictures as {{location|48|52|25|N|2|17|42|E}}, i.e. southern corner of Arc de Triomphe. I believe it is right position. Julo (talk) 09:52, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
Ebron - Drac :)
Actually I'll re-upload it with that name. I had originally called it that but the geo coding map showed Drac as being the right hand inlet whereas this bridge is the one over the left hand inlet. Nice work on them all - many thanks & regards --Herbytalk thyme08:09, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
Hi Eusebius, may I please ask for your help with French. In almost all sources the bridges are described as "Des passerelles himalayennes". Could you please tell me what does "himalayennes" means? Thank you for your time.--Mbz1 (talk) 18:46, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
Simply means "from Himalaya". I think it's just a reference to the style/making of the footbridge. Many mountaineers in the region are very familiar with Himalaya and might have brought back the design of the bridge (I'm just guessing here). --Eusebius (talk) 20:12, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
Thank you, Eusebius. It is what I thought too. I wrote an article about the place and the bridge on English Wikipedia and nominated it for DYK. Now I realized that not only I know no French, but I either know nothing about design of the bridges.Oh well... :) --Mbz1 (talk) 23:15, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
No pb. Now that there is a guideline for scope formatting, I'd like to build a system allowing the re-formatting of already promoted VIs. If you have an opinion about that... --Eusebius (talk) 13:11, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
Yes, it's nice to see it (almost) working. I'll start a discussion about my feedback (we need to talk again about some of the galleries, I'm afraid). For the moment, given the number of pictures in Commons:Valued images/Recently promoted, it would be suicidal to work in parallel on it. --Eusebius (talk) 21:55, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
Cool. Did not even know we eventually got a VI categorization tool! You want me to help with the categorization or would we be conflicting? Although we tried as hard as possible to do our homework concerning the VI topics I am not surprised if we need subsequent adjustments.
Helping wouldn't help, I'm a bit afraid of edits conflicts for the moment. Well, I've adapted QIhelper.hs to VIhelper.js a while ago (and I definitely hate JS), but the python scripts are brand new (it would have helped to see QICbot's and VICbot's code, but well, my students told me I should be able to code by myself now). --Eusebius (talk) 22:05, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
Bonjour Eusebius. Je découvre avec stuppeur que toutes les photos que j'ai déposées en COMMONS, certaines depuis longtemps déjà, sont promises à destruction ! Quelle est la cause ?--Cordialement, Kasos_France, (talk) 09:57, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
Bonjour. Les causes sont multiples, elles dépendent des photos et sont spécifiées dans le résumé de suppression.
Les photos issues de Sophia-Antipolis.org y sont mentionnées comme "tous droits réservés", ce qui interdit de les importer ici avec une licence libre (à moins que nous puissions disposer d'une autorisation écrite de la fondation). D'une manière générale, comme il vous l'avait déjà été mentionné en juillet 2007, il n'est pas possible de simplement prendre des photos sur le net et de les importer ici.
Les photos de l'ESA seront probablement supprimées à cause de la formulation de leur license, trop restrictive pour être acceptée sur Commons.
La photo de la croix et les photos des fresques de l'Aérospatiale sont des travaux dérivés basés sur des oeuvres d'art protégées. Malheureusement, en France, le fait que ces oeuvres soient situées dans un lieu public ne relâche pas les contraintes liées au droit d'auteur.
Pour les photos de Sophia Antipolis, j'avais déjà eu une autorisation, déposée en 2008 sur la page
Category talk:Sophia Antipolis. Ne serait-elle pas valable ?
Pour les photos de l'ESA, je vais voir avec eux.
Pour mes photos personnelles :
pour celle de la fresque, je vais essayer d'avoir l'autorisation de l'auteur.
pour celle de la croix des gardes, celle-ci est photographiée de loin, à plus d'un km. On y voit pas des détails de l'oeuvre. Puis-je la baptiser : colline de la croix-des-gardes, qui est le terme officiel cannois ?
Pour les autorisations, ce serait mieux de suivre la procédure indiquée ici. Si c'est un mail que vous avez, il vous suffira de le forwarder à l'adresse indiquée. Mais la permission telle qu'actuellement formulée pourra paraître insuffisamment claire au spécialiste qui traitera le mail : en général on demande de préciser explicitement que les travaux dérivés et les utilisations commerciales sont OK.
Pour la fresque, j'ai peur que ce soit avec l'Aérospatiale qu'il faille voir, et pas avec l'auteur, qui a sans doute transféré ses droits par le biais de son contrat (à vérifier).
Pour la photo de la croix, c'est une subtilité "à la con" du droit français (dans d'autres pays il n'y aurait pas de problème). Il ne faut pas que la croix soit le sujet principal de la photo. C'est ok si vous faites une photo générale de la colline ou de la montagne, et que vous ne pouvez pas éviter que la croix soit dessus. Mais ici si je me souviens bien, on ne voit qu'elle. Ce n'est pas une histoire de monument historique en fait, la question est juste de savoir si les droits d'auteur courent toujours ou pas (70 après la mort du créateur). --Eusebius (talk) 19:36, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
J'en reviens aux images ESA. Je viens d'ajouter sur la page Catégorie ESAles informations de copyright de l'Agence et le lien vers leur galerie multimedia.
Leur définition de copyright doit bien être proche de celle de la NASA ? Avec un maximum de photos libres et quelques unes soumises à droit commercial complémentaire. Est-ce que vous (administrateurs) pouvez définir une licence convenant à une utilisation maximale d'images européennes alors que la NASA américaine en diffuse des centaines ?
Seule l'ESA a autorité pour définir la licence des images dont ils ont la propriété ! Malheureusement, en France, ce n'est pas comme aux US, les travaux émanant d'agences d'état ne sont pas automatiquement libres de droit. C'est malheureux mais c'est comme ça : on peut utiliser les photos officielles de la Maison Blanche, mais pas celle de l'Elysée, par exemple. Et Commons a déjà défini sa politique concernant ce qui est libre ou pas, ça ne peut pas être modifié, c'est une donnée fondamentale commune aux projets de la fondation Wikimedia. Concernant la licence que vous avez citée, je n'ai pas les compétences légales pour être définitif mais je pense qu'elle n'est pas acceptable sur Commons. La demande de suppression sera examinée par des administrateurs davantages spécialistes avant d'être cloturée. --Eusebius (talk) 21:21, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
Merci pour ces infos. Je fais tout mon possible pour agrémenter WP de photos sympathiques, mais ce n'est pas simple ! Est-ce que vous avez (ou tu as) vocation à être parrain ? Car tu me sembles bien comprendre COMMONS et, si tu acceptes de me parrainer, je te soumettrai toutes photos avant publication pour éviter toutes suppressions "dégradantes". --Cordialement, Kasos_France, (talk) 08:43, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
Le tutoiement est mon comportement par défaut sur le net, je n'utilise le vouvoiement spontanément que par précaution, lorsque j'entre en contact avec les personnes dont j'ai supprimé les photos, ou à qui j'ai quelque chose à reprocher... Donc "tu", c'est bien :-) Oui, je serais ravi de te "parrainer" officieusement (je crois qu'il n'y a pas de réel projet de parrainage sur Commons). N'hésite pas à me poser des questions où à montrer ce que tu souhaites importer (ou que tu viens d'importer). --Eusebius (talk) 09:29, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
Heuuu... Comment ça ? Je ne comprends pas très bien la question (je commence bien, tiens, comme parrain). Une fois qu'elle est importée tu veux dire, si tu n'en as pas d'usage particulier ? Si c'est ça il n'y a rien à faire, on la laisse tranquillement dans sa ou ses catégories. --Eusebius (talk) 15:43, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
NON : je sais importer une photo, lui donner une catégorie. Mais à partir de là, elle est visible par tous et risque déjà des attaques. Est-ce qui tu as une espèce de "bac à sable" où je peux la mettre pour que tu l'examines tout seul ?--Cordialement, Kasos_France, (talk) 16:47, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
Non, si tu l'importes sur Commons elle sera visible par tout le monde. Mais si tu préfères m'en parler avant, tu peux éventuellement m'envoyer des fichiers (pas trop gros, des miniatures) par mail avant avec les infos qui vont bien (envoie-moi un message via le lien "envoyer un message à cet utilisateur" qui est à gauche et je t'envoie mon adresse). --Eusebius (talk) 17:02, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
Honnêtement, j'en pense surtout que j'évite de me fourrer dans ce genre de discussions... Mais si tu veux mon opinion, le viaduc est protégé "activement" comme une oeuvre d'art (avec une société chargée de protéger les droits) et il serait vraiment dangereux de garder sur Commons une photo dont il serait le sujet principal (la fondation se rétracterait à la moindre demande des ayants-droits, elle ne serait pas en mesure d'argumenter sur le caractère "libre" des photos). Pour faire un parallèle avec la croix, dans le cas de la croix on ne peut pas invoquer l'argument comme quoi c'est un design "utilitaire" puisque c'est fondamentalement une oeuvre fonctionnellement inutile (ça sert juste à faire joli, pas comme un pont qui sert à la circulation). Et si tu veux le fond de ma pensée (t'as pas demandé, mais au cas où), j'aimerais vraiment qu'on puisse avoir un droit de panorama en France, parce que c'est ridicule. --Eusebius (talk) 20:35, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
Bah en tout cas je t'embêterai pas avec, la croix est suffisamment "accessoire" dans la photo (même si le point de vue sur la colline n'est pas forcément le meilleur qui soit, mais c'est un autre problème. Pour la licence : en tant que photographe tu peux choisir celle que tu veux parmi les licences acceptables, tu peux même en mettre plusieurs (ça laisse le choix aux réutilisateurs de la photo). La licence {{FAL}} est ok. À noter : tu as le choix uniquement parce que le sujet de ta photographie est libre de droit (à la différence des photos de la fresque, pour lesquelles l'artiste a un droit d'auteur sur tes photos). Sinon, petite leçon du parrain, pour faire un lien vers une image tu peux faire comme ça (lien interne : [[:File:Cannes croix-des-gardes2.jpg|comme ça]]) plutôt que de recopier toute l'URL et d'en faire un lien externe. Les deux points au début empêchent que la photo elle-même soit incluse dans la conversation. --Eusebius (talk) 21:37, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
Est-ce que ton bot pourrait m'aider à catégoriser mes photos ?
Bonjour, je suis nouvelle sur commons. J'ai chargé entre hier et aujourd'hui une bonne centaine de photos. On m'a fortement conseillé de créer la Category:Images by Harmonia Amanda pour ne pas me perdre. Mais j'avoue être un peu démotivée à l'idée d'ajouter ça manuellement à toutes mes photos déjà importées, même si je le ferai désormais pour les nouvelles. On m'a alors conseillé de faire appel à un bot. Comme je ne parle pas anglais et que j'ai vu que tu avais un bot et que tu parlais français, j'ai pensé te demander. Est-ce que c'est du domaine du possible ? merci d'avance --Harmonia Amanda (talk) 09:34, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
Bonjour, tout d'abord merci pour ces imports de photos ! N'hésite pas à recommencer ;-) Par contre n'oublie pas de remplir le champ "date" lors de l'import. En ce qui concerne la catégorie, je vais voir ce que je peux faire. Ca ne fait pas très longtemps que j'ai mon bot, il faut que je trouve les bonnes commandes pour faire ça, mais ça ne devrait pas poser de problème. En attendant, tu as aussi ta galerie (il y a un lien au-dessus de ta page perso, normalement), dans laquelle tu peux retrouver tous les fichiers que tu as importés. --Eusebius (talk) 09:43, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
Hey Eusebius, I saw that you wrote your own bot to clean up the mess my bot makes :-)
Hey, that's not what I said!
Would you be interested in co-maintaining QIC- and VICbot instead? We could apply for a project account on the stable server and could both work on the code. It would be the safer long-term solution to have two people working on the code. And you could modify VIC-bot to your liking.
If you're not too afraid of my terrible programming, it would be a nice solution, yes. I have very little experience in team programming, but I can use SVN if it is SVN-based. Thank you for this proposal! --Eusebius (talk) 21:16, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
I copied the code into the qicvic account. It is not set-up to run, but you can start familiarizing yourself with it. We should meet in IRC sometime after this weekend. --Dschwen (talk) 19:55, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
OK thanks, but please leave me a few days... I must send my thesis to my jury before wednesday, so I don't have much time to look at the code right now. You get the idea, I'm sure! --Eusebius (talk) 20:01, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
Really don't think my opinion is absolutely needed. At quarter to midnight local time, I hardly manage to converge with myself. --Eusebius (talk) 22:45, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
Well, we can't be aware of any single picture on the project, but thanks for the link, I'll have a look. I'll nominate it for deletion, so that it becomes clear to us what is the status of such images. --Eusebius (talk) 13:13, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
It is indeed impossible to check that this file was once released by Yale under the GFDL. However, being a plain coat of arms, it might be possible to replace it by a properly licensed representation, made by Commoners (because CoA definitions are usually PD). If you think an image has a doubtful copyright status, please feel free to nominate it for deletion. If you think the logo you've uploaded yourself should be kept on Commons, please transform my problem tag into a deletion request (thus triggering a wider debate involving other admins), but I strongly recommend that you do not hold me responsible for your own actions. It is your right to question my evaluation of this picture, but through the normal way (which is the deletion/undeletion request). --Eusebius (talk) 11:30, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
To administrator:
This image (see below) is a seal of Harvard University. Could You please check its Permission, Author, Source, Date and Description? Do you want to delete it? --~User:OnionBulb (talk) 11:25, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
This one is the work of a Commoner. The definition of the crest itself (the blazon) is PD, and the user has released his own interpretation of it under a free license. Here, there is no problem. --Eusebius (talk) 17:28, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
Book cover
Bon jour. I couldn't find out what copyright-law says about book covers. Obvioulsy they are art-desigend, on the other hand, its definetly not the cover, which is sold, but the book. What about the thousands of book covers in Amazon and Co ? They need a permission to be published ? My case; book published in 1953, scanned by me in 2009. Best --Wistula (talk) 15:27, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
Hi there, thank you for your concern. It is not really specific to book covers. The fact is the illustration on a book cover is a "work of art" (sometimes in a quite broad sense) and is thus protected by copyright. If your book was published in 1953, I must assume (in the absence of any other information) that the illustration is from about that date, and thus that its copyright hasn't expired yet. So technically, yes, it is still protected and cannot be hosted on Commons with a free license. So, what about Amazon? Their use of the images is considered fair use, which is a kind of exception to copyright in the USA (here it usually covers logos, movie posters, album or book covers...). Some Wikipedias (like the English one) accept images tagged as fair use. It is not the case on Commons, and I'm afraid it is not the case on the German WP either. I hope my explanation helped. Otherwise, feel free to ask again. --Eusebius (talk) 16:10, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
Hi Eusebius, I asked you this question on the image nomination page, but maybe you have not seen it. May I please ask you, if you see all the problems Hans is talking about, because I do not honestly. Thank you for your time.--Mbz1 (talk) 16:32, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
I may be able to spot obvious flaws, but not subtle ones, I'm not a very good photographer or photography reviewer. This picture is currently in a state where I can neither oppose nor support: not obviously flawed for me, but not obviously perfect either, and I'm ill-at-ease with the halo around the tower, generated by the postprocessing.
Additionally, I think you should avoid asking users individually to review a nomination or vote for it. Thorough reviewing takes time and users shouldn't feel obliged to do so. On the WMF projects we are all volunteers and we should feel free to contribute when/where/how we feel suitable. Of course, things can be different when you become a recognized expert/reference in the community (like when one asks MichaelMaggs for copyright advice) but I'm an expert in absolutely nothing relevant to Commons. Plus, when you ask for a review, easily influenced people like me could feel artificially inclined to support. I really think we should rely on "community activity" (spontaneous or encouraged) even though it sometimes doesn't come when we need it. I hope I have clearly expressed my views, but I seriously doubt it :) --Eusebius (talk) 17:24, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
You did. Thank you. Sorry I asked you personally to review the image. I did only because you were the one, who reviewed it in the first place. It will not happen again. Best wishes.--Mbz1 (talk) 17:44, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
No, you are absolutely right. As I said one thing that promted me to do it was that you reviewed the image before. The second thing was that it was not about my own image, but I guess I'm looking for something to justify my request that cannot be justified. Well I am still learning :) Best wishes.--Mbz1 (talk) 18:18, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
Il n'y a rien à redire, la Wikipédia française (comme Commons) interdit les documents en fair use (qui n'existe d'ailleurs pas en droit français). Si l'image n'est pas libre de droits, même si elle n'est pas destinée à un article encyclopédique, elle ne peut pas être hébergée et proposée avec une licence libre. Ici c'est une personne morale qui est la propriétaire des droits, il faudrait donc, pour que l'image soit acceptée, qu'une personne habilitée à représenter l'asso (typiquement son président, parfois d'autres membres du bureau, ça dépend des statuts) envoie un mail de ce type. --Eusebius (talk) 20:42, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
suppression d'images
Salut Eusebius, merci de tes recommandations. Elles sont très techniques.
Mes réponses n'apportent pas beaucoup plus , mais les voici :
Pour File:Gestion multimodale déplacements - Grenoble.jpeg , j'ai téléphoné et envoyé un mail au cabinet d'architecte Grenoblois pour leur demander l'autorisation d'afficher la maquette du futur bâtiment GMCD sur l'encyclopédie WIKIPEDIA via Commons. Ils ont été d'accord de suite mais m'ont simplement demandé de faire figurer le nom du photographe et leur cabinet, ce que j'ai fait, peut être pas dans la bonne case car je vois que j'ai mis travail personnel. J'ai rectifié. Et quand j'ai vu qu'ils m'avaient envoyé le fichier original du futur bâtiment, je n'ai pas osé leur renvoyé un mail leur demandant de m'écrire le fameux texte m'autorisant à publier librement.......
Et pourtant on en a besoin ! Il faudrait qu'ils envoie ce type d'e-mail à permissions-commons-fr@wikimedia.org, sans quoi on ne pourra pas considérer que la publication est possible. --Eusebius (talk) 21:06, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
Pour les photos d'immeubles la loi française est implacable, mais alors il faut avertir les utilisateurs de commons avec un message qui tienne tout l'écran et non pas un texte perdu parmi trois mille. Cela éviterait du temps perdu pour tous , utilisateurs comme administrateurs. Ce serait plus cohérent comme démarche.
Ouais, mais ce qu'il y a c'est que normalement on évite aussi d'être un peu trop agressif là-dessus, parce qu'à ce niveau-là on est un peu un pays d'attardés et que c'est extrêmement frustrant. Pour la petite histoire avant de devenir admin j'ai commencé par faire supprimer mes propres photos... La règle est surtout appliquée pour les bâtiments vraiment récents ou célèbres et pour lesquels il y a vraiment quelque chose d'artistique (et surtout les bâtiments commandités par les collectivités locales ou l'état) parce que ce sont ceux pour lesquels on a le plus de chance d'avoir des problèmes. --Eusebius (talk) 21:06, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
Pour les cartes postales, je n'ai pas d'autres informations car je les ai scanné sur un livre de C. Muller et il n'y avait pas d'autre info que la description de la photo. Quelques unes comportent une description imprimée sur la photo même. A titre info, elles datent toutes de 1925 ! Par contre j'ai beaucoup d'anciennes cartes postales de Grenoble et quand je regarde au verso, il y a les mentions de sociètés qui n'existent plus depuis longtemps comme LA CIGOGNE 1 rue Palanka Grenoble ou bien REAL PHOTO C.A.P. Paris.
C'est embêtant. Pour celles dont tu as (eu) accès au verso, tu peux spécifier "published anonymously" dans le champ auteur (et précise-le dans les demandes de suppression), ça permet d'utiliser une autre licence ({{PD-EU-no author disclosure}}) et de les conserver (éventuellement). Les vieux documents qui sont "presque" dans le domaien public et dont on n'a pas toutes les infos, c'est toujours un problème. Dans tous les cas, précise toutes les infos que tu as dans la page de l'image. Notamment, lorsqu'il y a le nom d'une société, c'est généralement elle qui détient les droits. --Eusebius (talk) 21:06, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
C'est visiblement une reproduction d'un portrait gravé. Si on ne sait pas d'où ça vient on ne pourra pas le garder. --Eusebius (talk) 21:06, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
Je comprend bien ta position d'administrateur, je ne t'en veux pas, mais du fonds de mon cachot je crie Vive le droit au panorama. --Milky (talk) 20:45, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
Si la DR que je viens de faire sur la seule image du jour de WP te gène, fais-la sauter. C'est toujours plus pratique de n'avoir qu'une page de vote. Cordialement, Coyau (talk) 10:22, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
Pas grave. Dans l'idée, ça voulait dire fais comme tu veux et ne t'embarrasse pas avec ma DR pour ton attaque au bulldozer. --Coyau (talk) 10:53, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
Merci, mais ça reste une oeuvre dérivée pour moi, la photographie ne peut pas être considérée de minimis à mon avis, puisque c'est toujours le sujet principal de l'image. --Eusebius (talk) 10:02, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
Hi, I know that you work a lot on Valued Image candidates, so I'm sure you know the policies much better than I do in this area. This image has been promoted on 2009-03-05, and one day later, someone uploaded a cropped version over it and credited himself for the modifications. Now I'm tempted to revert, because I find it kind of rude (why not uploading under a different filename) and because the VI promotion was not based on this version, but I don't know if there is an actual policy about it. What do you think? –Tryphon☂13:11, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
Hi, there is no definite policy about that related to the VI project. I guess this crop does not change much for VI, but if you think the image is too much different, you should upload it under a new name, credit the source, the editor who made the crop, fill the "other versions" fields in both images, leave a note to the editor, and revert to the promoted version. --Eusebius (talk) 13:44, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
OK je vais regarder (si c'est une erreur tu peux aussi la corriger je me vexerai pas...) N'empêche que les deux murs de gauche et de droite sont pas parallèles, je sais pas si c'est dû au bâtiment ou pas. --Eusebius (talk) 19:17, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
Bonjour, la discussion a lieu ici. Je ne clorai pas la requête de désuppression moi-même car c'est moi qui l'ai initiée, mais je vais pinger un autre admin. --Eusebius (talk) 10:45, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
I don't know who you pinged, but I restored it already; I hope it's okay. There seemed to be a pretty clear consensus on COM:UNDEL, and the out of scope argument was clearly wrong. –Tryphon☂11:00, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
Je ne suis pas sûr de comprendre quand une procédure MVR soit être ouverte. Elle ne l’a pas été pour Commons:Valued image candidates/Superphénix.jpg bien que plusieurs images aient été proposées. Je suis aussi surpris que la procédure n’est pas abouti à un choix vu qu’il y avait plusieurs candidats. Cordialement, Yann (talk) 14:16, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
Ca aurait pu déboucher sur un MVR, il suffit que quelqu'un décide de nominer une ou plusieurs autres photos. Il y a un MVR dès lors qu'il y a plusieurs candidats nominés pour le même scope. Comme la candidature s'est ici terminée en "undecided", tu peux la reproposer à tout moment (voir ici). Ca peut être l'occasion de le faire sous la forme d'un MVR, en nominant une ou plusieurs autres photos. Une petite remarque toutefois : il est assez fréquent que les MVR se terminent sans aucun candidat promu. --Eusebius (talk) 14:27, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
mes autorisations
bonjour, j'ai toutes les autorisations, pour mes docs.
A la fois du conseil general des pyrenees orientales, du groupe Phoenix et de son label "loyauté, de la compagnie Outalot aux USA.
que dois je faire en plus ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Xaviateur (talk • contribs) 15:30, 7 April 2009 (UTC) (UTC)
Parfait alors ! Il ne vous reste plus qu'à suivre la procédure expliquée ici et à forwarder toutes ces permissions à permissions-commons-fr@wikimedia.org (précisez bien dans votre mail le nom des photos qui ont été supprimées, ça facilite les choses). Et s'il s'avère que le Conseil Général a effectivement donné l'autorisation d'utilisation de son logo officiel à des fins commerciales et pour des travaux dérivés, je vous paye un café ;-) --Eusebius (talk) 15:36, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
Hi. pl:Angie, if is notable, is a singer or something like that. So, this photo looks like promotional material, not an amateur shot :) I don't think that Angie or the professional photographer is the uploader. I think that the article on pl.wiki and this photo, if not a blatant copyvio, is out of project scope (we don't like promotional scope ;)--Trixt (talk) 17:39, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
OK, I agree on the "more than probable copyvio" thing of course, but I'd rather rely on the "no source" tag plus 7 days. About the promotional character, I think the picture is not promotional in itself, any decent picture of a notable person would look a bit promotional... I guess it will be eventually deleted on the ground of copyvio/nsd. --Eusebius (talk) 17:45, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
If you'd like to clean up pages of images I upload, of course you are more than welcome to. I won't be. In my opinion, the results CommonsHelper comes with are good enough.--Rockfang (talk) 18:22, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
I know what the output of CommonsHelper looks like, but there's actually a lot of not-so-useful information in it, and sometimes vital information is missing. That's why each moved image should be checked by a human user. It's a pretty tedious task and we don't blame movers when it's not done or not fully done. Just please don't undo the work unless a significant info is lost :-) Regards, --Eusebius (talk) 18:44, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
Hi, please send a permission e-mail, based on this template, to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org. You will be asked to show that you actually are the copyright holder. This can be done for instance by disclosing your real life identity in the e-mail (it will be kept absolutely private) or by providing (still in the e-mail, still private) the original pictures, full size, with original EXIF data. Please provide (in the same e-mail if possible) information about all the images deemed dubious or problematic. Please include the exact filenames of the images as registered on Commons, so that they can be found easily. Also, when you have sent the e-mail, add {{OTRS pending}} to every image not deleted already and impacted by your permission e-mail. This will ensure they are not deleted until the end of the verification procedure.
Thank you for your contribution and understanding. If something is still not clear, don't hesitate to contact me again. --Eusebius (talk) 20:08, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
Elin Sigvardsson
Hi Eusebius!
Could you ask the author for permission, so we could use this pics on swedish and english Wikipedia? sorry for my bad english. Thanks in advance --Sweday (talk) 11:01, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
I'm not sure what picture you're talking about. Anyway, unless you hold copyright on it, you cannot upload it on Commons and release it under a free license. If it is not obvious that you are the photographer (for instance, if it's been published somewhere else already, please send an authorization e-mail through the OTRS procedure. --Eusebius (talk) 14:06, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
you stated "unconclusive OTRS ticket". Can you please clarify. As far as I know, en.wiki user Sladen is the person who filed the tickets and I think he said that he had asked for and got permission for their use (I've informed him of this post on en.wiki). I'd like to be sure of whats happened here, as these were the only images of the BBC Box that I'm aware of, and the article now looks rather crap. Ultra7 (talk) 11:54, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
Hi, I'm sorry now that I didn't put the ticket number in the deletion summary, I'm forced to search again... What I've done and said means that the customers (copyright holders) have never provided enough information for us to accept the release of the pictures with a compatible license. Actually the picture should have been deleted much sooner. I'm sorry for the trouble caused. --Eusebius (talk) 13:47, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
So the permission emails in question (which were also pasted into the body the metadata page) have been located/matched up, or haven't been matched up? —Sladen (talk) 15:54, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
These permissions were properly received in OTRS, but they were not clear enough and have not been clarified by their authors. I'm sorry but I cannot be more precise. --Eusebius (talk) 16:07, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
So this needs going back to Freightliner and the individual in Glasgow and getting the boilerplate out of them? Is that what "unconclusive" [sic] means on this occasion? In which case, please could you retrieve the headers of OTRS/pasted emails and I shall attempt contact the original photographers again; IIRC, both parties were fairly responsive when I contacted them... However, alot of the OTRS email replies that I've seen are blunt to the point of rudeness, and confusing enough that the OTRS email request winds up getting ignored (never mind the embarrassment for the person originally working on negotiating the release).
I haven't managed to understand what the "I'm sorry but I cannot be more precise" part refers to, is this something vague, akin to "...for security reasons"; is there a missing sentence/words? Could you try rewording that last part so that I can try to better understand what it's referring to? —Sladen (talk) 17:13, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
Hi, I'm not sure I understand you well. This picture is ok, because it is a work by user:Sodacan, not because it is SVG. Could you be more precise in your question? --Eusebius (talk) 17:42, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
I'd say it can stay (although this could be subject to debate in a deletion request), because the SVG and the PNG are two (different) interpretations of the same abstract blazon. The author of the SVG, in the absence of a written description (or because it's easier), took inspiration in the PNG to represent the coat of arms, but no part of it is directly copied in the SVG, I don't think it can be considered a derivative work. It's a bit like rephrasing the informations from a book in order to make a Wikipedia article. I think the case is borderline, though. --Eusebius (talk) 19:32, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
Hi,
I saw that you deleted the Telecom Web Services.jpg image because of copyright violations.
I'm the author of the picture and working for the company Ericsson. How do we add our pictures to Wikipedia? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Erkap (talk • contribs) 08:34, 14 April 2009 (UTC) (UTC)
I see. Ericsson is a pretty large company. But do I as author of the picture have the authority to speak on behalf of Ericsson? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Erkap (talk • contribs) 08:48, 14 April 2009 (UTC) (UTC)
I understand the issue. As an author, I'm afraid you may have no right at all (save paternity attribution), because it is very likely that all rights have been transfered to your employer, per your contract. If you have had (internally) the authorization to release this file under a license that allows derivative works and commercial use, feel free to send an authorization e-mail yourself, but the OTRS volunteer who will process it will probably CC a contact e-mail found on the Ericsson website. It might be risky for you if you're not 100% sure about what Ericsson allows you to say on their behalf. --Eusebius (talk) 08:57, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
"Signature brute (sans lien automatique)"
Bonjour Eusebius,
Merci pour ton aide. Le problème provient certainement de ce que tu m'as signalé.
La signature suivante le prouvera !
J'ai créé une MVR, comme tu l'as suggéré. Je pensais que tu le ferais, vu que tu as proposé cette alternative. Cordialement, Yann (talk) 17:17, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
C'est à dire que si c'est moi qui propose l'image, je ne peux plus voter ! Alors comme tu ne peux de toute manière pas voter, étant l'auteur, je comptais sur toi ;-) --Eusebius (talk) 17:29, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
Borrado de imágenes
Hola:
Creo que he cometido el error de no poner el permiso para utilizar algunas imágenes y por eso tú las has borrado. Quiero corregir el error pero no sé como hacerlo.
Te indico debajo que las imágenes proceden del Ministerio de Educación de España y aquí la pág donde se ve ese permiso: [6].
Te agradecería que me indiques cómo tengo que hacer para volver a subirlas .
«File:Granja-de-cerdos.jpg» subido. ({{Information |Description={{es|1=Granja de explotación porcina.}} |'''Source=Banco de imágenes del Ministerio de Educación de España (La utilización de los recursos del Banco de imágenes y sonidos es universal, gratuita y abierta, siempre y cuando se indique la fuente)'''
Hola Gabriel, gracias por tu mensaje y perdoname por my Castellano (y la falta de acentos). Habia visto la permision y la fuente, pero en Commons se necesita que autorizar el uso comercial de las imagenes, y la noticia del sitio ministerial no lo permite. Es una lastima, porque las imagenes son realmente valiosas, y porque veo que consagraste tiempo y trabajo. El peor es que no terminé de comprobar tus imagenes, tendré probablemente que borrar mas. --Eusebius (talk) 11:02, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
Hi. I'm sorry but that might not be enough. The copyright holder of the original picture is the photograph, or his heirs. If the photograph was hired by the subject to take the photo, or if he was something like a friend of the subject and taking the photograph for him, we may consider that the rights have been transfered to the subject (Nachum Eitan). In that case, the copyright holder would be Nachum Eitan, if living, of all his heirs. If the subject is deceased and you are the only living heir, then we can accept your release in the public domain. Otherwise, we need the authorization from all his living heirs. Can you please tell what the situation is? If you want the answer to this question to remain private, you can send it to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org, with a link to the picture (and to this conversation). Thanks in advance. --Eusebius (talk) 09:18, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
Also, it would be nice to have the date of the picture (or an approximation) and, if possible, the original author (or something like "hired photographer" or "friend of the subject"). Finally, please tell us why this picture is in scope. Is the subject notable in some way? --Eusebius (talk) 09:21, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
I really don't understand why I need to go through so much trouble for a 90 year old picture of a man who died 33 years ago. It is not protected by copyright, and was sent to me by Nachum Eitan's only living heir, Ora Sapphire. If you're still not convinced, just delete the image and I'll upload it to the Hebrew Wikipedia, where I am a sysop. Barak Sh (talk) 12:52, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
Because we need some info in order to be sure that it is indeed not protected by copyright, we can't just take your word for it (especially after you've stated at upload time that you've created yourself a picture taken 90 years ago). As an admin, you should care at least a little bit about copyright issues. Anyway, if you're able to tell that the picture was taken about 90 years ago, then it is ok according to Israeli copyright law, if it is the applicable one (but you had to say it, we cannot just guess it). I take the liberty to guess that the photographer is "unknown". About scope inclusion, the picture is now used in a WP article, so it's definitely in scope. --Eusebius (talk) 13:08, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
I didn't mean to state that I've created the picture myself, I just left the default "Own work by uploader" when uploading, which was a poor mistake (I didn't really understand that it means I took the picture myself). As for notability, he is a well-known figure in the history of Tel Aviv-Yafo. I'll remember to use {{PD-Israel}} from now on when applicable. Anyway, I'm sorry for your trouble - sadly, I'm still a novice on Commons, but I'm gradually learning the rules... Thanks, Barak Sh (talk) 17:48, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
It is a "poor mistake" that almost everybody does, and the upload forms probably don't help. That's why the "problem tags" are applied quite quickly and quite often. Anyway, no trouble, we're here to deal with such things and copyright issues can sometimes be a pain in the neck. --Eusebius (talk) 18:27, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
Nikbot
Thank you to have told me the problem. An user (not me) has changed the template I use with the bot, adding the heading inside the template (that I added before in another way) so the template had two different heading, as you have noted. Thanks again, now the problem is fixed :-) Bye, --Filnik\b[Rr]ock\b!?10:13, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
I take this photo with my own camera at the day when Markus Eckard had ve a - damn my english is shit - presentation of mujodogane. after playing the phtos on my pc i resized the photos with microsoft picture resizer cause i thaught its better to play a smaller picture in the cammons. thats all. i swear: it was me who maked this picture! --Okami-san (talk) 15:41, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
OK ok, no need to swear :-) Anyway, when the picture is problematic, uploaders just say nothing. If you tell me than you actually took the picture, I must believe you. For information, it's better to upload large image on Commons: the servers will resize them automatically when they are included in Wikipedia, for instance. Just don't worry about disk usage. --Eusebius (talk) 15:44, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
Because the templates added by the gadget are now autotranslated (save 3 or 4). Thanks for reminding me that I should take care of them... Tell me if you think there still is a problem I haven't seen. See also the discussion here. --Eusebius (talk) 19:47, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
Hey Eusebius, how are you? Remember me? I´m the guy from Costa Rica...
As I said on my own talk page, I need you to help me finish the Sincronico´s profile. I only need to add 2 photographs, but I need you to explain me if they are ok or not...
I´m gonna give you the band´s official site link: www.sincronico.net
I´m pretending to use 2 from that site; I already talked to the singer personally and he said it was ok... He even was glad because of my effort in doing an article about his band. But well, I´m guessing you will need a letter from him, in order to prove that I´m telling the truth. You tell me if I´m right...
Besides, I noticed that I had a problem when I showed to him for the first time the article: the link didn´t work, perhaps for the strees in the word "Sincrónico", you know what I mean? In spanish: me refiero a la tilde de la palabra. I said to him that I could get rid of the stress, but that wouldn´t be correct.
So please help me... As you may notice, is urgent.
Sorry, and thanks for your attention and patience.
Ok, I´ll tell Eduardo (the singer) to write the letter for the permition. And well, this was the problem that I got when I tried to show Eduardo the article for the first time:
I used copy and paste in order to give him the link, and it appeared like this: http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sincr%C3%B3nico_(grupo) The first time I gave it to him it didn´t work: all the link turned blue except for the last parenthesis. So, I don´t know why...
But well, if you copy and paste that link I just typed it will work after all, but I think it´s kinda strange, know what I mean? It should be at the end of the link "Sincrónico_(grupo)" not like the one in there "Sincr%C3%B3nico_(grupo)"
About the "strange stuff" in the address, it's pretty normal: non-ASCII characters have to be "encoded" in a special way in order to be used in a URL. This is just because the URL system has been designed by Americans and that it's difficult to switch to something more clever (well, international) now that the whole internet uses it. --Eusebius (talk) 10:04, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
Yes, I can tell... Well, thank you for your advice an attention. Now I´m gonna tell Eduardo to write the letter in order to get the permission. Right now I´m reading the section about "Tipos de licencias", so I can tell him wich one can be useful to him...
Hola de nuevo, perdona si estoy llegando a ser un poco molesto, pero necesito de tu ayuda. Como dije en el mensaje anterior, he estado leyendo un poco acerca de los tipos de licencias disponibles, y la verdad no sé cual podría ser la indicada en el caso de Eduardo, el cantante de Sincrónico.
¿Podrías decirme cuál (o cuales) licencias serían correctas en este caso?... Muchas gracias Eusebius. Que estés bien.--Crowally (talk) 03:13, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
Hi. I'd choose either CC-BY-3.0 (I use it for my photographs) or CC-BY-SA-3.0 (which imposes in addition that any derivative work be licensed under a compatible license). Both require that the original author be properly credited. --Eusebius (talk) 07:52, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
Je sais. Lycaon avait dit qu'il proposerait peut-être des sous-catégories, mais ce n'est pas fait. Moi, je n'ai pas les connaissances requises pour faire des propositions, et si les images sont toujours dans "recently promoted" c'est juste que j'ai eu la flemme de vérifier que c'était bien des "seed plants", alors n'hésite pas à en trier un peu de temps en temps... --Eusebius (talk) 15:12, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
Commons Picture of the Year
Hi, would you do me a favour? We need to announce the opening of voting for the POTY final in various places. Would you mind placing a translation of this notice somewhere suitable on the fr Wikipedia, please? You may need to tweak the link by adding an extra "Commons:" so that it links back properly to the relevant page here. Many thanks. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 17:40, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
The finalists have been selected! Vote in the 2008 Commons Picture of the Year competition. The final voting round to select the 2008 Picture of the Year is open now. Voting closes 23:59 UTC 30 April (Thursday).
je me permets de vous solliciter en votre qualité de personnel OTRS. J'espère ne pas me tromper mais je crois que ça vous donne la possibilité de certifier qu'un document est libre de droit d'auteur.
J'utilise une base de vidéo de de Microsoft Research Cambridge rendu publique à l'adresse suivante: http://research.microsoft.com/en-us/projects/i2i/.
Il s'agit de la rubrique "Data" qui mentionne "Please click here to access freely available research data." C'est une base largement utilisée dans le domaine de la recherche en vision des ordinateurs.
Je souhaite montrer le résultat du traitement de ces images sous la forme de fichiers "gif", dans la page "Camshift" (http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Camshift).
Je vous aurais bien montrer un exemple de résultat mais le premier de mes gifs (Fichier:Ilkay.gif) a été effacé par un autre administrateur (Alchemica : http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utilisateur:Alchemica) pour des raisons de droits d'auteurs.
Mon article sur le camshift comporte 3 volets, et le dernier est bien pauvre sans illustrations ... pourtant j'utilise des vidéos rendus publiques.
Comment dois-je démontrer qu'il n'y a pas de problème de droit d'auteurs, sachant que si j'envoie un mail aux responsables du groupe i2i qui ont rendu publiques leur base d'images, il risque de ne pas me répondre (ce sont des grands pontes dans leur domaines: Andrew Blake, Fitzgibbon et Alex Criminosi)... et si je devais leur demander une permission explicite tout de même, qui devrais-je mettre en copie de ce mail?
J'ai pensez à vous, peut être, mais il me faudrait votre adresse... pourriez-vous m'aider SVP?
PS: désolé de ce mail interminable, j'espère que vous prendrez le temps de me lire.
Bonjour. Ce n'est pas parce qu'un document est mis à disposition sur internet qu'il est libre de droits, par défaut il est sous le statut "tous droits réservés", ce qui est d'ailleurs confirmé en bas de la page que vous pointez. Donc il y a des problèmes de droits d'auteur. Cette page mentionne d'ailleurs un copyright Microsoft, si les personnes que vous citez travaillent pour MS, il est fort probable que ce soit la société qui détienne les droits sur les documents. Dans tous les cas, il nous faut effectivement un e-mail d'autorisation. Si les auteurs prennent le risque d'accorder une autorisation, je pense que l'on pourra considérer qu'elle est valide et que Microsoft est ok.
L'idéal donc effectivement d'envoyer un e-mail aux trois auteurs en même temps, avec en copie permissions-commons@wikimedia.org, et que l'un des auteurs réponde à tous avec une autorisation sous la forme de ce message-type. Si l'auteur ne répond pas à tous, forwardez juste sa réponse à permissions-commons@wikimedia.org. Si le message de permission est ok, nous enverrons une confirmation en mettant les auteurs en copie (de manière qu'ils puissent contester en cas de problème). Si vous voulez que ce soit moi qui traite le message (ou si vous voulez qu'il soit traité rapidement d'une manière générale), faites-moi signe lorsqu'un e-mail a été envoyé à permissions-commons, que je puisse aller le trouver (au besoin vous pouvez me contacter par mail via le lien dans la barre à gauche : "lui envoyer un courriel"). Est-ce que ça vous paraît clair ? --Eusebius (talk) 15:10, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
Images de valeur
Salut Eusebius, Il y a quelques jours deux de mes photos ont été promues images de valeur (Takayama et Kyoto). Cependant je n'ai pas reçu la notification habituelle et les deux fichiers n'ont pas été étiquetés Images de valeur. Est-ce que tu peux vérifier? Merci. --Bgag (talk) 16:27, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
Merci d'avoir remarqué ! Je pense que c'était dû aux problèmes de réseau que connaissaient les serveurs à l'époque, on va essayer que ça ne se reproduise pas trop souvent... J'ai ajouté les tags à la main sur les images. Tu tiens beaucoup aux notifications ? --Eusebius (talk) 17:09, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
Je savais pas qui c'était un robot qui faisait le boulot... C'est porquoui je l'ai fait moi-même. Next time I'll blame Dschwen... Alvesgaspar (talk) 17:32, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
English: Hi, i have a question: JPG images can be reupload to change to format PNG and delete JPG image, there are a template for indicate this ?
Español: Veo que sabes español, asi que explico mejor la pregunta: las imágenes JPG se pueden recargar en formato PNG, para después deshacerse del JPG?, si no recuerdo mal, los formatos JPG y GIF son formatos propietarios (non-free formats) y sería conveniente que los formatos de la imágenes sean png o svg, hay alguna plantilla para indicar que la imagen debe cambiar a PNG? Saludos Shooke(Talk me in spanish, english or italian)23:57, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
Hi, please allow me to reply in English. The JPEG format has been designed and normalized by an ISO working party, it is now public and corresponds to the standard recommentations ISO/CEI 10918-1 and ITU T.81. Anyone can thus make JPEG-compliant tools. Forgent's patent on JPEG has been invalidated in the US (it has been proved that they knew about prior art and that their patent declaration had been made on bad faith), and it is likely that their EU patent would be invalidated as well if they wanted to enforce it. Anyway, the US patent has expired now (there's another, rather sneaky patent attempt for another company, but I think it is being dismantled by the US patent office). We consider that it is a public, open format, and we recommend it for photographs (PNG is sometimes recommended for scans, but JPEG is widely used here as well). The GIF format used to be protected (patents have expired in 2007 I think), and it should be used only for animations (which PNG cannot cover, I think). For still raster illustrations that are not animated, please use PNG. And of course, if you can use a totally vectorized SVG instead of a PNG, please do.
That said, if two versions of the same image are hosted in different formats, it is ok for both to remain on Commons. We consider that they are not duplicates and can be used in different contexts, for different purpose. For instance, if you make a complex SVG, it is very ok to upload a PNG version as well, since the automatic SVG to PNG conversion made by the server can be far from perfect. Different templates exist to show the relationships between the different versions: {{Vector version available}}, {{Bitmap version available}}, Category:Templates for marking as superseded... See also {{Convert to PNG}} and the notes attached to it.
File:Monoski.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 file, 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. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues.
Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!
I am intending to use the one of the Herodus Atticus theater in two educational talks I will give on Greek culture - I will list you as the author and cite your courtesy for usage.
Thanks you.
Sincerely,
Michael
Hi, thanks for your message, glad to see you find the picture useful. If by chance you come on my talk page again, I'd be interested in the full reference of your talk. Regards, --Eusebius (talk) 05:50, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
Off topic
20 April, at the time of construction, were found at Auschwitz walled bottle with a sheet. On a sheet of prisoners signed up to. Six Poles, and a Frenchman - number A12063. Frenchman still alive. [9]. Albertus teolog (talk) 17:00, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
Re: Sopot Grand Hotel
I can confirm the origin of that file under the name you gave on my pl.wikipedia talk page. I completed the file info with the name of the original uploader and I hope it will suffice. If not, please let me know what else can be done - the file info on the deleted pl.wiki page corresponds to the description here on Commons now. Wpedzich (talk) 19:32, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
Hi there Eusebius, how have you been? I hope you are fine (and your family as well).
Remember me? I´m the guy from Costa Rica. I couldn´t log on these days because I have been very busy with the university, but well, I´m back...
And well, I sadly noticed that all of the pictures that I´ve uploaded in most of the articles in wich I have participated (creating or editing them) have been deleted. So, all the hard work is wasted.
Like I said some days before, I´m going to show you some of those pictures so you can tell me how to upload them again without been deleted again:
1-In the article of Carlos Luis Fallas, I would like to upload again this 2 pictures:
Inconsciente Colectivo was a rock band from my country as well, they disbanded back in 2004. (I also noticed that all the album covers were deleted as well).
You will find both articles over the spanish version of Wikipedia...
Same question, same remarks. In both cases, the photograph (or his heirs) holds the copyright by default, and you have no right to release these pictures under a free license. --Eusebius (talk) 07:27, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
I see, but there´s a problem in both cases. Carlos Luis Fallas died 42 years ago, and Inconsciente Colectivo disbanded 5 years ago... I have no contact with Pato Barraza (the singer and holder of the image´s rights). Well, seems I´ll have to leave it like that then.--Crowally (talk) 19:28, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
You have to be aware that the very large majority of works available on the internet are unfortunately not usable in the projects of the Wikimedia Foundation. --Eusebius (talk) 19:40, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
J'ai des questions à propos du processus : Dschwen a reverté ma photo modifiée et a voté en faveur de l'originale. Lycaon a ensuite apparemment voté contre, mais je ne sais pas sur quelle version, et je ne comprends pas son commentaire : que veut-il dire par « over-processed, over-sharpened yielding halos » ? Que faut-il faire ? Merci pour ton aide, Yann (talk) 12:34, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
Sur les multiples versions : c'est le bordel à chaque fois, à ma connaissance il n'y a pas de protocole clair. J'ai soulevé le problème il y a quelque temps (en demandant sur quelle image comptaient les votes, et ce que ferait le bot s'il y avait plusieurs images pour la même nomination), je me suis à moitié fait rembarrer (mais sans que la situation soit clarifiée à mes yeux), alors depuis, dès qu'il commence à y avoir plusieurs version pour la même nomination, je retire mon vote et je ne touche plus à rien, parce que ça me gonfle... Désolé si ma réponse ne t'aide pas ! Ce que tu peux faire, c'est faire une deuxième nomination séparée pour la deuxième version, et éventuellement dispatcher les votes entre les deux versions, avec l'accord des votants. C'est ce qui me paraîtrait le plus clair, mais bon, mon avis ne sera sans doute pas partagé. Sur la remarque de Lycaon : J'en sais rien. Je ne suis pas un très bon photographe, je ne suis pas très calé en postprocessing, et je n'ai pas un très bon coup d'oeil. C'est pour ça que je n'ai pas revoté pour ta photo. --Eusebius (talk) 14:50, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
J'ai suivi la suggestion de Carol et ajouté une version modifiée séparément. Cordialement, Yann (talk) 19:41, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
Crop of RubyThroated Hummingbird image
I have no objection to cropping this image. Would it be proper to crop the image now, after it has been judged a quality image? That would change the image from that which the quality image was based. --JMSchneid (talk) 18:34, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
No, don't change the QI, it's better to upload the crop as a separate picture. That way, the QI remains untouched and reusers have the choice. --Eusebius (talk) 18:39, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
Hi. In spite of the vicious example I've given, I'm totally prepared to believe that. I've clarified my position in the DR, I hope. --Eusebius (talk) 20:11, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
Yes, I have given a reply to your reply. I don't know why Evillarry doesn't correspond with you. Either he is away or he is not the uploader. Cheers, --Leoboudv (talk) 05:05, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
The authorization is about different images about the same band. It looks ok but I'm not fluent enough in Spanish to handle an OTRS ticket myself. --Eusebius (talk) 18:24, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
I have deleted one of these files because the permission e-mail you have shown was an authorization for Wikipedia only, which is not acceptable on Commons (as explained in the deletion summary, please read the page linked from it). If the authorization you have sent is diffferent from the one I have seen already, please tell me. Since I haven't seen the authorization for the two others, I'll add {{OTRS pending}} to them so they don't get removed before an OTRS volunteer checks your authorization e-mail (please add the template yourself when you have sent an authorization for a picture). --Eusebius (talk) 07:33, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
Okay, I added new licence information as told me via e-mail (3rd May 2009 02:22 pm) from an official Wikimedia Commons member. I also reuploaded the deleted picture File:Josef-Richard-Kaelin.jpg again. All of these three pictures are fully licenced for all Wikipedia and Wikimedia projects by its owner. He also told these via e-mail to the above mentioned member. I hope that now all is okay. Thanks a lot. --Robse (talk) 15:52, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
Thanks, the OTRS volunteer will update the images pages as soon as everything is ok. I can't read German so I can't do anything. --Eusebius (talk) 16:05, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
Okay, thanks. But if there is any problem please let me know, so I can translate the e-mail if its necessary.Regards.--Robse (talk) 12:46, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
I am. If you want to update it so that it just says paralogical as author, that's fine too. Otherwise I don't know any easy way to prove linkage between name and username. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Paralogical (talk • contribs) 01:22, 8 May 2009 (UTC) (UTC)
What you can do is upload the pictures covered by the letter and put {{OTRS pending}} in the "permission" field (it will prevent the files from being deleted until the email is examined). Once you've done that, a nice thing to do is to send the list of the file names to OTRS (through a "reply to all" from the authorization letter). --Eusebius (talk) 13:19, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
No, it was not a copyviolation from there (as I wrote in the summary when I removed the speedy delete template). The source you give has a lower resolution than the Commons-edition. Please undelete at file an ordinary deletion request. Nillerdk (talk) 06:26, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
The uploader has admitted that he was not the author of the picture and that he did not hold the rights over it. He only owns a copy of the slide. Anyway, the fact that the author stated on this institutional source is not the uploader would be enough for me to delete. --Eusebius (talk) 08:30, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
I also tend to think it is a copyvio and I tend to think you are right. But I don't know and I don't know if you know more than me. Maybe the uploader really was the photographer and it wouldn't be a bad idea to give the uploader time to state his point. I don't understand what you mean with "the author stated on this institutional source" and I can't check because the photo/scan is already gone. Your reason in the summery doesn't justify speedy deletion alone. I wish that more admins would take it easy and give not obvious cases a chance. Now all I know is that the file was deleted and I could think "another file deleted by a better-knowing admin". Please be extremely careful when doing speedy deletions. Thank you. And thank you for the doing the hard and big job as admin. Nillerdk (talk) 21:18, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
The links in my deletion summary mentions "François Tomasi" as the photographer. The uploader, who is openly using his true name (I've been dealing with his uploads for a while), is not François Tomasi. As I said, the uploader admitted he was not the photographer and he only owned a copy. There's no much place for interpretation, I don't know what kind of further evidence you could need. This is probably one of the less controversial speedy deletions I've ever done. --Eusebius (talk) 21:36, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
Sorry, I did oversee that when I accessed the page, I just compared the photos. As already mentioned, I can't verify this, because I can't access the deleted page. Therefore it would have been useful with a more explicit explanation in the summery. I'm sorry to have disturbed you. Nillerdk (talk) 06:19, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
It looked like a B-flat tenor sax, but I'm not a specialist at all, and you may know better than me. Please note that I have categorized some uncommon saxophones with more classical ones (sopraninos are with sopranos, double-bass-like are with basses, etc.). Feel free to improve. FYI, I've categorized saxophone pictures in order to justify the distinction I've introduced between Category:Tenors and Category:Tenor singers (and so on). --Eusebius (talk) 13:22, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
Thank you. I know the musician shown played the C clairnet (rather than than the more usual B flat clarinet), so I thought he might do the same with the saxophone. I can't tell from the photo. I need to show the phto to someone who knows a lot about old saxophones. Thanks for your help. Cheers, -- Infrogmation (talk) 13:31, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
RE: File:The escape engine video.ogg
Please refer to the copyright information on file in the following ticket regarding the mentioned file:
I'm not a specialist, but it is also also clearly "only text and geometric shapes". Much more complex logos have been kept on this basis. --Eusebius (talk) 16:54, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
Yes, quite a common scheme. What would be not ok (overcat): a category or file both in "transport in Devon" and "transport in Plymouth", for instance. BTW, I'm not a native English speaker, so, "transport", "transports", "transportation", I don't really know about that (when it comes to concepts, plural is not so obvious anymore), but "Transport in ..." seems to be the common choice. --Eusebius (talk) 15:37, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
Cette image d'une personnalité est en petit format, sans metadata, et l'utilisateur (BRMU) n'a qu'une seule autre contribution. En plus il a remplacé une image par une autre qui n'a aucun rapport. Yann (talk) 17:56, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
Justement il n'y a rien dans l'historique. Ca me paraît trop compliqué pour une speedy deletion. Tu pourrais faire ce que tu penses qu'il faut faire ? C'est le dernier fichier dans la catégorie "unknown"... --Eusebius (talk) 18:10, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
Hi Eusebius, you have deleted this logo on 27 March 2009 as missing essential information: source, license and/or permission. There is an OTRS ticket regarding this case I am just taking care of. This ticket is not yet finalized but I took the freedom to restore the logo such that everything can be checked out by the copyright holder. Regards, AFBorchert (talk) 18:32, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
I saw your action on my watchlist and assumed that. Please remind them that they're releasing their logo for commercial use and DW. Regards, --Eusebius (talk) 18:41, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
I have a doubt, yet: are you sure that ELAU has the right to release the logo of their mother::: company? Schneider Electric has rights over this logo. --Eusebius (talk) 19:05, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
All this is covered by the OTRS ticket and I do not want to take that here. Please contact me at OTRS wiki, if you like. Regards, AFBorchert (talk) 20:53, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
As soon as you are aware of the issue and still think it is ok, it's fine by me, I trust your judgment. My remark was only based on information publicly available. --Eusebius (talk) 21:21, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
NASA movies
I added source info, but I did something wrong with the templates. I tried to fix it here. The URLs are in the edit summary, but not showing in the template. Can you take a look at them (you listed them on my talk page) and make sure it's OK? - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 05:58, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
I had regrets about it right after I commited the edit. Most of the "alumni" structure currently follows the "university name alumni" scheme, but it wasn't adapted at all with the disambiguation. I'll work on moving the all structure the other way, and I'll have this in mind in the future. --Eusebius (talk) 18:15, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
File naming
I want to upload a picture of an ICL 2966. It's a mainframe computer. The picture is called "ICL 2966.jpg". Commons won't let me use that filename, though. Can this be overridden, given that it's the most descriptive filename for what the picture is of? --ClickRick (talk) 20:46, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
Honestly, I don't know whether it is possible to make exceptions to the filename blacklist (I'm sure you understand that it is generally sensible to blacklist a name like that). Could you live with something like "ICL 2966 computer", "ICL 2966 mainframe computer" or something similar? Otherwise, I suggest you find more experienced admins at COM:AN. Regards, --Eusebius (talk) 20:53, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
Ah, I'd assumed the ban on filenames "starting with" meant any filename "starting with". "ICL 2966 mainframe.jpg" does the job nicely. Thanks.
J'ai apposé une demande de permission sur quatre fichiers (File:Parvi.JPG, File:Exercice commandement.JPG, File:Épée2.JPG, File:Ceremonieeocm.jpg). Tu les as viré en commentant "why would an authorization be needed here?".
Passons sur la politesse de mettre un mot sur la pdd de l'utilisateur dont tu annules les modifications puisque j'ai eu la précaution de mettre ces images en liste de suivi... Malgré la mention "own work", il manque clairement l'autorisation de l'École des officiers du commissariat de la marine. CR MOMMESSIN (talk·contribs) qui a importé ces fichiers fait probablement partie de ce école, mais il n'a pas - malgré mes demandes - envoyé de courriel sur OTRS.
Ca m'agace quelque peu que tu considères toute contestation de tes évaluations comme un manque de politesse à ton égard. Je traite un certain nombre de fichiers de "statut inconnu", et lorsque le besoin d'une source ou d'une autorisation n'est ni évident ni spécifié par la personne qui tagge (de ce point de vue-là il y a des contributeurs efficaces et d'autres qui ne font que reporter la charge de travail sur les autres), je n'ai pas de raison de supprimer. Vu le nombre de fichiers que cela concerne, je ne peux pas faire à chaque fois une demande de suppression en disant "tel utilisateur a dit qu'il manquait une permission, mais je ne vois pas pourquoi alors je vote pour une conservation". De même, je ne peux pas mettre de message sur toutes les pages d'utilisateurs qui taggent de manière non évidente ou même à tort et à travers (sauf quand c'est clairement du vandalisme).
Cet utilisateur a importé plusieurs images copiées du site officiel. Je n'ai pas réussi à trouver d'où venaient les quatre images en question, mais il semble assez évident qu'elles ont été pris par un photographe officiel de l'école. Vu le background de l'utilisateur en question, il me semble plus que judicieux tout en présumant la bonne foi de procéder à une vérification.
Si tu connais le background et si le background doit être pris en compte, la bonne chose à faire est de faire une demande de suppression en l'expliquant. Les informations dont tu disposes sont nécessaires à la prise de décisions et ne peuvent pas être devinées : individuellement, les images que je n'ai pas supprimées ne présentaient pas de problème de droits particuliers.
De plus, la présence de métadonnées ne me semble pas de facto justifier le "own work" et régler le problème car des images du site comme http://www.eocm.fr/IMG/jpg/epees.jpg présente ce type de données.
Pas de facto, non, mais en l'absence d'arguments précis, AGF. Pour info (sans que ça soit directement lié) l'absence de métadonnées est actuellement considérée comme insuffisante en soi pour contester la paternité.
Je me permets donc de remettre ces demandes de permissions sur les images en les datant du 1er mai car Unknown as of 26 April 2009 a déjà été vidée.--Bapti✉16:29, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
Et moi je te suggèrerais de faire une demande de suppression massive à la place. Je ne vois pas pourquoi ces fichiers auraient besoin d'une autorisation en l'état, mais si ton expérience de cet utilisateur t'amène à penser que ce n'est pas son travail, il t'appartient de nous en faire part plutôt que d'exiger des gens qu'ils obéissent à tes injonctions de suppression sans poser de question. Question de politesse et d'efficacité de la communauté dans son ensemble : si chacun bosse dans son coin sur la base d'informations qu'il ne partage pas, il ne faut pas s'attendre à ce que les autres partagent ses conclusions. Mon jugement actuel, c'est qu'en l'absence d'un signe tangible comme quoi l'uploader n'est pas l'auteur des photos, il n'y a pas de raison de supprimer. Mon opinion, c'est qu'on ne devrait pas utiliser {{Npd}} lorsque la source de la photo est discutée, ça ne fait qu'apporter de la confusion. Je ne te jette pas la pierre, l'utilisation de ces templates est actuellement plutôt non-déterministe et les contributeurs ne sont pas aidés par les règles exprimées. Je travaille sur une amélioration, je te proposerais bien de participer aux futurs débats mais si je me souviens bien ce genre de trucs sur Commons n'est pas ta tasse de thé. En ce qui concerne ces fichiers en particulier je laisserai à un autre admin le soin de les traiter : je ne vois pas de raison à la speedy deletion, je n'ai pas les éléments pour faire une demande de suppression et je ne goûte pas particulièrement les conflits interpersonnels. En espérant que nos futurs contacts pourront être autres qu'épidermiques, --Eusebius (talk) 17:09, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
Category renaming because I have mEsSeD up
Hello Eusebius,
We met recently on my en.wiki talk page about an authorship issue. At commons, I have created several categories today but as I was not so familiar I made cApiTaliZatiOn mistakes. I am very sorry for that! Here are the categories I have created:
I have populated the categories with images already an I hope the renaming is possible without uploading all the images again. I am not very familiar with the renaming procedures at commons and you are the only one I actually know around here. If I need to change all the category links on the image pages, please let me know on my talk page at en.wiki, that's where the chances are best to reach me. Thank you very much! doxTxob \ talk01:03, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
Hi, that's no big deal as long as you spot the issue and request things to be fixed. I'll do that. In the future, should you have a similar request, you can go there. Regards, --Eusebius (talk) 06:44, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
Bonjour. I have an autograph of Sir Edmund Hillary, which his article lacks. I know that the United Kindgom policy about autographs is different than e. g. the Czech one, so I want to ask if you don't know by any chance whether I can upload an autograph of a person from New Zealand. Best wishes, --HTO (talk) 12:39, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
Hi. I'm not really sure about that, but, according to this page, I would say that NZ is a "common law" country (because of their link with UK) and that the same reasoning is likely to apply. But I have no idea about the originality threshold in NZ, it might be as low as in UK. You should probably ask there. --Eusebius (talk) 13:11, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
I would like to explain you that the pictures I uploaded are not under copiright and that I have the permission of the author to upload them. I have to confess that I'm not really skilled about uploading media; in case I committed some mistake (i.e. information associated to the pictures) please feel free to come back to me with your feedback.
Then you should: 1) not state yourself as the author when you are not, but instead credit the actual author and indicate your source in the relevant fields, and 2) send the authorizations you may have, preferentially in this form, to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org so that they can be validated. Once you have sent such an e-mail, please apply {{OTRS pending}} in the "permission" field of your uploaded image, so that admins know that a permission is being examined.
If you have such permissions for the files I have deleted already, or for the remaining one, please send them (but please do not reupload images, they will be restored if necessary). --Eusebius (talk) 09:06, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
Hi. As you can see, I have not speedily deleted the picture, but nominated for deletion so that there could be a debate, and you have the opportunity to give us more info. I suggest you do it on the page of the deletion request. It is the only place where it can be useful. --Eusebius (talk) 10:37, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
(ec)I think that's it, yes. Honestly, I didn't want to let the bots handle this, I think they would have done part of it but not all of it (the list of VI by scope was already handled by EuseBot, but it's only a side-effect of my lazy programming style). The bot features I should have a thorough look at are demotion, image renaming, image deletion and, in a general manner, updates of stuff linked from the scope. It's a bit sensitive since VIs are refered to at multiple places, and in multiple manners (in galleries, in template parameters, in lists of plain text, with or without links in the scope...). I don't know who designed this project, but he surely doesn't like programmers :-) --Eusebius (talk) 13:15, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
Then I should not like myself, as I work with programming on a daily basis myself;-) Kidding aside I think there are certain aspects which are quite bot-friendly, like the status field, which categorizes images to state-specific categories, and the fact that we use templates so much. We actually tried very hard to have bots in mind right from the beginning. I think it is OK that the bot does not handle demotions - yet. I mean we have had two so far or something like that, so it isn't much of a burden to switch to manual when that occurs. However, the number is likely to increase in the future, as we get more VIs. --Slaunger (talk) 13:28, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, I know. I use the low demotion rate as an excuse for not working too much on VICbot :-) I truly believe the VI project was designed with bots in mind from the beginning, but there are a few pitfalls anyway. EuseBot takes advantage from the automatic template categorization (status-based), for instance, and now I call it "lazy programming style" because the code is not as robust as it should be: a promoted VI which is sent to MVR is removed from the cat of the promoted VIs, whereas it remains a VI until it gets demoted. That makes it removed from the list of VIs by scope. Plus, I find it not so easy to work with templates, but I'm still a beginner with pywikipedia (and Dschwen, who is not one, writes code that is not able to handle automatically every kind of links in the scopes, because of the struture of links and templates). Everything in MediaWiki should be coded in XML :-) --Eusebius (talk) 13:48, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
Sorry but the warning about this file that you gave me is misdirected. I only reuploaded the file that was erased by a blank file (that has been already deleted) being uploaded by the original uploader, and readded the licencing that was stated on the original upload. I dont claim any copyrighted or work on this file, nor i know who is represented on this file, as i was only reverting vandalism. The one user that is making this\was?) claims is User:F Anderssen. With best regards Tm (talk) 01:57, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
Those messages are generated automatically when an image is tagged. Feel free to remove it from your talk page, I've copied/pasted it on the relevant user's talk page. --Eusebius (talk) 09:18, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
New version of file "October Revolution celebration 1983.png"
I have rescanned this file from the original slide. New name:
"October Revolution celebration 1983 3.png"
The spots should be gone from this file now.
I'm still not satisfied with the color balance, etc. Thomas Hedden (talk) 02:49, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
Pourquoi certaines nominations ont un message May be closed if the last vote was added no later than... et d'autres non ? Comment faire apparaître le message ? Merci, cordialement, Yann (talk) 17:43, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
Salut, le message apparaît lorsque le délai minimum est écoulé et que l'on peut fermer une nomination : 4 jours pour un candidat qui n'a que des Support ou que des Oppose (statut "supported" ou "opposed"), 7 jours dans tous les autres cas. Pour les faire apparaître, il faut juste attendre que le délai soit écoulé. S'ils n'apparaissent pas alors qu'ils le devraient, il faut normalement juste purger le cache de MediaWiki (pour que la page soit recalculée). J'espère avoir répondu à ta question. --Eusebius (talk) 18:06, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
I'm sorry, I didn't see the larger file was a DW of the smaller one. Feel free to delink back if you think it's better. I won't delete any of them, obviously. --Eusebius (talk) 10:43, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
I don't mean "by the bot", but "by users": at upload time, many images which do NOT need an authorization (own work, not published elsewhere, clear cases) are tagged with {{OTRS pending}} because the users are unsure of what the "permission" field means. These files end up in our backlog but we shouldn't delete them, we must simply remove the OTRS-related tags. This is independent from how the bot works, but I think a notice here is a good idea, to avoid blind deletions. --Eusebius (talk) 16:40, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
The root of the problem is the comprehension users have of the upload form. It is the root of most deletions on Commons. If you have suggestions to improve it, please go ahead. --Eusebius (talk) 19:11, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
Bonjour, merci encore pour ton appui pour les images concernant Emil-Edwin Reinert. J'ai un problème actuel avec Commons:Erna Hamburger] Je viens de télécharger une seconde image et aimerais qu'elle fusse l'image de référence, celle qui est sur Wikipédia. De plus , quand on clique dessus, elle s'ouvre TRES lentement. Erna était suisse, mais tout de même. Merci d'avance, --Schnäggli (talk) 17:58, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
Bonjour. Je ne vois rien de vraiment anormal, et surtout je ne vois rien que l'on puisse faire. Il est normal que les premiers chargements soient plus longs (il faut que les serveurs calculent les miniatures), mais à terme l'image ne devrait pas être plus lente à charger que n'importe quelle autre. S'il y a un problème, c'est probablement un problème de lenteur des serveurs, et il ne vient pas de la photo. --Eusebius (talk) 19:12, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
Picture reuse: Adam and Eve
Hi
I would like you use your picture of a painting showing Adam and Eve, for educational purpose in Denmark.
Best regards
Lotte Djursner
from Clio Online, Denmark.
— Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.184.202.237 (talk • contribs) 07:33, 10 June 2009 (UTC) (UTC)
Hi. I'm delighted to see that you find my work useful. Thanks for notifying me. I would be grateful if you could credit me as the photographer, and give me the references of the reuse, if it is something public (because it's always nice to know). Best regards, --Eusebius (talk) 11:29, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
Re: OTRS pending bot
The bot can only handle a certain number of the categories at a time or it dies; I wasn't able to run it yesterday due to some server errors, but hopefully I'll be able to do so later today or this evening. Also, since I've been given no direction on how to handle the "OTRS received" templates, the bot is currently ignoring these for now, so they'll remain in the "backlog" until someone from OTRS takes care of them. One more run should clear out what's left of the backlog, those images excepted. Hersfold(talk/work)16:57, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
Sais-tu comment fonctionnent les élections d'oversights sur commonswiki ? J'ai lancé une prise de décision sur frwiki pour débloquer le statut d'oversight là-bas, mais on se demande comment se passent les élections chez les autres wikis. Pourrais-tu laisser un mot ici si tu sais comment ça marche ? Merci ! Elfix ↗talk ⋅ discuter09:10, 10 June 2009 (UTC) (j'ai également demandé à Lucasbfr de enwiki et Carbidfischer de dewiki.)
Salut, désolé mais je ne suis pas très au courant de ce genre de choses (d'autant que les oversights sont apparemment moins actifs sur Commons que sur les WP). Tu devrais demander à Rama, qui est oversight lui-même. --Eusebius (talk) 11:24, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
Non, il s'agit bien des images de qualité. La catégorisation des images de valeur est à mon avis bien meilleure. Il serait utile de la prendre en exemple pour les QI. Yann (talk) 15:22, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
Désolé, j'ai confondu avec ton autre post. La catégorisation des monuments et bâtiments est évidemment trop large, c'est principalement à cause de ce constat que nous avons passé du temps à améliorer la catégorisation des VI (qui vient de celle des QI, à la base). Ceci dit, pour les QI, c'est peut-être aussi moins important. --Eusebius (talk) 17:22, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
Overwrite
How can I ovewrite an existing image using Commons Helper. Somebody stoled my image and says he's the author. Answer me in english or french, I understand the both. --Cezarika1 (talk) 07:41, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
Hi. Overwriting an image is generally not a good solution, but there certainly are other ways. Do you mean that some user has taken an image of yours and uploaded it here on Commons? Could you point me to the image and to the source? --Eusebius (talk) 07:45, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
Would it be ok if we simply correct authorship information on the existing image on Commons? After that, you should ask a Romanian admin to remove the original (I have no authority there). I think it is better because the original image page on ro has very few info on it. --Eusebius (talk) 07:54, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
Church monuments
I have added some information for you regarding the above on my own talk page. I am finishing Commons today. There is more I would like to do to sort out similar funerary categories, as I have always done in the past, but I'm afraid you might revert any further edits I do. For instance, I would like to recategorise the images under Sepulchres, as they are only sepulchres in the very broadest of senses and I always understood that the categories were supposed to be as specific as possible. Funerary art was a subject I studied at University. If I am not considered expert enough, I shall stop my edits. Sorry, I thought I was being helpful. Verica Atrebatum (talk) 18:11, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
Hi. I will reply on your talk page, I'm reading it right now. I don't question your expertise, it's only about the logic of a few moves. --Eusebius (talk) 18:16, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
Salut. Désolé de t'embêter, mais je trouve que tu as un peu exagéré. Je ne dis pas que ce que tu as supprimé ne devait pas être supprimé, c'est sans doute le cas (en tout cas pour les "petites" c'est évident), mais sur la forme, c'est ce genre de truc qui fait que les admins de Commons sont au pilori en ce moment. Les images ont été supprimées sans aucun message sur la page de l'utilisateur (alors que ça doit toujours être le cas), et avec un résumé qui ne dit rien de spécifique. En regardant les logs d'une image supprimée, il devrait être clair pour un utilisateur lambda qu'il y avait une bonne raison pour la suppression, et les administrateurs, en regardant les logs supprimés, devraient avoir accès aux éléments de décision précis. Pour les petites images, il était nécessaire de fournir le lien puisqu'on pouvait le trouver. Pour les grandes, à mon avis le speedy n'était pas justifié : le "copyvio" n'est basé que sur ta conviction et sur des éléments (les EXIF et l'historique de l'utilisateur) qui auraient dû être partagés dans un "mass deletion request", qui n'aurait eu aucune raison d'être cloturée en "speedy". C'est vrai que j'aurais pu me cogner la mass deletion request moi-même, avec toutes les images, petites et grandes, et je sais que c'est chiant à faire, mais tout de même. Je te serais reconnaissant de bien vouloir laisser un message sur la page de discussion de l'utilisateur disant ce que tu as supprimé (en résumé), pourquoi tu l'as fait, et comment il peut contester la suppression au besoin pour certaines images (pour info, pour chaque fichier que j'ai supprimé il y avait une notice de copyvio sur la page de discussion, et c'est ParisDreux qui les a virées). Je te serais aussi reconnaissant de faire un peu plus gaffe à la forme... Cordialement, --Eusebius (talk) 07:29, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
Salut. Je comprends que nos avis divergent, et même si j'estime que le comportement des administrateurs de Commons peut être amélioré, cela ne sera pas fait sans une modification des règles qui préconisent aux administrateurs de supprimer « dans le doute ». De plus, quand je m'occupe de la suppression de plus d'une centaine de fichiers aux alentours de minuit — et en l'absence d'un système semi-automatisé qui me mâcherait le travail —, j'ai du mal à motiver la suppression du fichier plus que par un “Copyright violation”. Sur la forme, j'ai aussi une remarque à te faire : pourquoi avoir inondé la page de discussion de l'utilisateur de {{Copyvionote}} (je n'y vois pas l'intérêt, à part agacer), plutôt que de rédiger un message personnalisé, faisant optionnellement une liste des fichiers que tu as supprimés ? C'est ce que je fais quand je procède à des suppressions immédiates, ça prend une dizaine de minutes de plus et permet de montrer au « fautif » qu'on essaie de l'aider. Ceci étant dit, je reconnais mon erreur et tâcherait de laisser quelqu'un d'autre faire le travail à ma place la prochaine fois, il vaut mieux ne rien faire que mal le faire (il y en a qui ont le Special:Nuke facile). Je m'excuse également (je n'y ai pensé qu'en me levant ce matin) de ne pas avoir laissé de message sur la page de Parisdreux (talk·contribs), en effet en cas de plainte cela aurait été à toi qu'il se serait adressé, alors que c'est moi qui me suis occupé d'une grande partie des images. Je vais lui laisser un message de suite. →Ditithepenguin — 10:35, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
Ah ben ça, j'ai pas dit que j'étais blanc comme neige non plus. Si j'ai "inondé" la page de discussion, c'est parce que j'utilisais le lien "report copyright violation", qui génère les messages utilisateur et un lien de suppression avec un résumé adapté. Encore une fois, ce que j'aurais dû faire, c'est une demande de suppression en masse... mais c'est chiant. Sur le "principe de précaution", il n'étend pas le cadre des speedy deletions (pour lesquelles le copyvio doit être "obvious"). Je pense que les gens ont raison quand ils reprochent aux admins Commons de faire des speedy trop facilement. Prends pas trop ça comme un reproche, j'ai ce défaut aussi. Merci pour ta réaction en tout cas. --Eusebius (talk) 10:41, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
Oui, tu le dis toi-même de toutes façons, « c'est chiant » ; c'est pour cette raison que la plupart des admins Commons — moi y compris — ont tendance à « expédier » les tâches administratives, pour avoir le temps d'en faire plus, la charge de travail administrative étant relativement importante (mais personnellement, j'aime bien être occupé par ça, ça montre qu'on est utiles, dans un sens). Ah, et j'ai laissé un message à Parisdreux (talk·contribs), on va voir ce que ça va donner. →Ditithepenguin — 11:24, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
J'ai effectivement mis les images provenant de la série de bande dessinée L'ultime Chimère à jour sans autorisation. Mr Laurent-Frédéric Bollée et la maison des éditions Glénat vont ajouter leur autorisation dans quelques heures qui viennent.
Je voudrais également réserver toutes images présentes pour mon projet sur Wikipédia et j'ignore comment le fait-on.
Bonjour, si les autorisations sont envoyées rapidement, pas de souci (les ayants-droits sont bien conscients que ça autorise n'importe qui à réutiliser les images pour n'importe quel usage, y compris commercial, y compris pour la création de travaux dérivés ?). Que voulez-vous dire par "réserver toutes les images présentes etc." ? --Eusebius (talk) 11:27, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
En ce qui concerne réserver toutes les images présentes etc., je voulais juste dire de les mettre de côté afin que personne ne l'utilise avant que les images ne soient finalement autorisées.
À partir du moment où elles sont sur Commons, tout le monde peut les utiliser ! Le seul moyen est de les supprimer. Les "tags" présents sur les images avertissent les réutilisateurs qu'une autorisation est requise. Si vous préférez, on supprime toutes les images et on les restaure une fois qu'on a la permission. --Eusebius (talk) 13:04, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
Pour info ils ont commencé à être supprimés par d'autres admins, vu qu'en l'absence d'autorisation ce sont des violations évidentes du droit d'auteur. --Eusebius (talk) 14:06, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
signature brute
Bonsoir et merci pour la signature (problème rectifié).
Parce que cette image avait été supprimée, étant attribuée à "Vincent Babilotte" sans permission explicite de sa part. À partir du moment où vous affirmez que "Babskwal = Vincent Babilotte", par contre, pas de problème. J'ai restauré l'image en associant votre nom à votre pseudo. Si vous ne souhaitez pas que ce lien soit explicite, faites-moi signe (mais la procédure serait un peu plus compliquée). --Eusebius (talk) 08:09, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
Anglosaxon England
Hi! I've seen you have deleted an image about Anglosaxon England (Inglaterra_anglosajona_new.png). It was a translation of this one: English kingdoms 600.png. I supose that the user who translated the names forgot to write the source. Can you do anything? It was used in a featured article in Spanish Wikipedia. Thanks. --Millars (talk) 11:36, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
Image restored, info updated. Thanks for providing the source. We should really set up an efficient inter-wiki notification system to avoid such issues. Sorry about the inconvenience. --Eusebius (talk) 12:59, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
Ciao, j'ai reçu un avis de ta part me disant que je dois mieux spécifier le copyright de cette image. Je ne sais pas quoi faire, parce que j'ai simplement pris l'image qui était en it.wikipedia et je l'ai transférée en Commons. Aide-moi, svp, à faire ce travail. Merci! --Croberto68 (talk) 11:03, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
Bonjour, le fichier est marqué comme étant créé par la NASA, mais aucune source n'est fournie. Pour pouvoir garder le fichier avec la licence NASA, il faut que l'on puisse vérifier qu'il a bien été publié par la NASA. Il faudrait un lien vers une page d'un site de la NASA où ce fichier apparaît. --Eusebius (talk) 11:07, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
Le fait c'est que celui qui a chargé l'image en it.wiki n'a mis rien d'autre que ce qui se trouve dans la même page de Commons. Ahi! Je ne peux rien faire. J'attends la cancellation (!) de la page. Ciao. --Croberto68 (talk) 11:23, 22 June 2009 (UTC) NB L'image en it.wiki se trouve à cette page.
Not any Creative Commons license is acceptable on Commons. The files you point at have NC (non-commercial) or ND (non-derivative) restrictions which are not permitted here (see COM:L here for the acceptable licenses). The Flickr acceptable licenses are CC-BY and CC-BY-SA (attribution and attribution share-alike). When you find an image with such a license (and you think the image might be useful on Commons), just use the Flickr upload tool, which will take care of almost everything for you. It will also prevent you from uploading wrongly licensed images.
Once a trusted user or a bot reviews your Flickr upload, DON'T MODIFY OR REMOVE THE REVIEW (any image from flickr must be reviewed at some point). If the review is ok, it must be left as a proof (so that the copyright status of the picture is not questionned in the future). If it is not ok, the image must be deleted unless you get a specific authorization from the Flickr user. I hope my explanations were clear. --Eusebius (talk) 10:16, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
Those photos were taken by Ilija Studen, my fellow student. He deactivated Facebook account, so I can't take screenshot as proof. But trust me, he knows for this, and i wouldn't stole images and give credit to an author, when is more simpler to say that I am the author. --BokicaK (talk) 13:28, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
Yes, if the files are available somewhere else with a compatible CC license, no pb. Would you please care to state it as the source, check that the CC license on Commons is the same as on the blog and remove the problem tags? I can do this myself if you want, but later, not now. Additional remark: if the blog becomes unavailable, it is possible (although improbable) that in the future somebody challenges the source info (there is no such problem with registered OTRS authorization, but I understand the process can be cumbersome). Regards, --Eusebius (talk) 09:23, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
Bonjour Eusebius,
j'espère répondre au bon endroit.
Concernant les différentes photos postées (pour Claude Verlinde, Jean-Pierre Alaux & Félix Tisot) il se trouve que je suis le galériste de ces artistes et possède donc tous les droits de reproduction des oeuvres.
Pourriez-vous m'indiquer la démarche à suivre pour apporter cette preuve ?
Cordialement. -— Preceding unsigned comment added by Bouletalex (talk • contribs) 09:23, 1 July 2009 (UTC) (UTC)
Bonjour, je ne suis pas sûr de savoir de quelles images vous parlez. Quoi qu'il en soit, dans le cas général ce sont les créateurs (ou leurs héritiers) qui bénéficient du droit d'auteur. Si vous voulez publier des reproductions de ces oeuvres sous une licence libre, il faudra que vous prouviez que les artistes ou leurs ayants-droits ont renoncé par contrat à l'intégralité de leurs droits patrimoniaux en votre faveur, ce dont je doute. Je parierais plutôt sur le fait que vous disposez d'une license d'exploitation des oeuvres, ce qui ne vous confère pas la propriété de leur image. Bien évidemment, je me base sur l'usage habituel et il est possible que pour une raison ou une autre vous possédiez effectivement les droits patrimoniaux sur ces oeuvres, ou plus simplement que vous soyiez mandatés par les artistes pour parler en leur nom (encore une fois, il faudra le montrer). Concernant la procédure, nous demandons une autorisation sous cette forme (éventuellement modifiée pour les cas particuliers), à envoyer par la personne autorisée à la formuler à permissions-commons-fr@wikimedia.org. Toutes les communications avec les adresses mail de la fondation sont strictement confidentielles, ce sera donc l'occasion de montrer éventuellement des copies de contrats ou de mandats pour justifier de vos droits. Si tout est ok, un "ticket d'autorisation" sera délivré, qui ne comportera aucune info privée. J'espère avoir répondu à votre question, si ce n'est pas le cas n'hésitez pas à me recontacter. --Eusebius (talk) 09:59, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
Une probleme avec mes images.
Salut!
Est-ce que vous pouvez m'aider?
Je ne sais pas anglais (je suis Russe), et je ne comprends pas que-ce q'il faut faire avec mes images, quel sort des permissions je dois mettre?
Merci pour votre réponse. Je travaille au Liskom. Peut-etre ce sera plus facilement, si j'écris que ces mes images (non des images de Liskom)? :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ivan.liskom (talk • contribs) 13:26, 29 June 2009 (UTC) (UTC)
Non, si ce n'est pas vrai. Des dérivés de ces images peuvent aisément être trouvés sur internet, ce qui vous amènera à être accusé de violation de copyright, et les images à être supprimées. Il faut juste une autorisation de Liskom. --Eusebius (talk) 13:58, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
Bien. N'éloignez pas ces images, s'il vous plaît. Je dois parler avec mon directeur sur la permission. Merci beaucoup!
Bonjour! J'ai ajoute l'information necessaire aux photos, regardez, s'il vous plait. Avec logo c'est plus difficile, j'essaierai le televerser sur Wikipedia, comme "non-libre". Ivan.liskom (talk) 09:30, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
Non je regrette, vous n'avez pas "ajouté l'information nécessaire", vous avez changé la paternité de l'image, ce qui n'est pas correct. Je fais une demande de suppression pour qu'il puisse y avoir une discussion et que ce ne soit pas juste entre vous et moi. Je supprime le fichier immédiatement car c'est en fait une copie d'un fichier provenant de kopirkin.ru --Eusebius (talk) 09:35, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
C'est dommage que vous ne me croyez pas. :) Kopirkin (site http://kopirkin.ru) est un produit de la compagnie "Liskom" - http://www.liskom.ru Je travaille a "Liskom". Regardez mon email - ivan@liskom.ru Et c'est vraiment moi, qui a fait ces photos. Et ces photos ne sont pas la propriete de "Liskom". Que je dois faire ? Ecrire de mon email une lettre avec la confirmation des permissions ? Ivan.liskom (talk) 10:12, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
Je suis prêt à vous croire, comme je l'ai dit dans la demande de suppression, mais il faut faire les choses bien : une photo qui appartient à Liskom ou à Kopirkin, ce n'est pas la même chose qu'une photo qui vous appartient à vous, même si vous êtes le dirigeant ! Vous avez dit que le propriétaire était Liskom, puis vous avez dit que c'était vous, puis finalement on découvre que c'est Kopirkin ! Ce n'est pas une question de "vous croire" ou pas, il faut que vous donniez des infos correctes ! Donc oui, comme je vous le dit depuis le début, il faut un mail d'autorisation "officiel" de Liskom et/ou Kopirkin pour les images qui appartiennent à ces sociétés. Si vous souhaitez rédiger ce mail en français, le texte standard est ici et l'adresse est permissions-commons-fr@wikimedia.org. Apparemment il n'y a pas de modèle en Russe, mais vous pouvez envoyer un message similaire, en Russe, à permissions-commons@wikimedia.org (il sera juste traité moins vite). Dites-moi dès que vous avez envoyé un mail, en me précisant quelle photo il concerne, que je puisse restaurer les images au besoin.
En ce qui concerne le logo, je pense qu'il est mieux pour vous de le télécharger directement sur Wikipedia avec une licence "fair use". Si vous le mettez sur Commons avec une autorisation, vous permettrez à n'importe qui de l'utiliser à des fins commerciales et d'en faire des travaux dérivés. Ce n'est probablement pas ce que vous souhaitez. Si vous mettez le logo sur Wikipedia, dites-moi lorsque je peux supprimer le fichier sur Commons. --Eusebius (talk) 11:25, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
Bonjour! Nous avons écrit la lettre à l'adresse permissions-commons-fr@wikimedia.org de l'adresse info@kopirkin.ru. Aussi j'ai téléchargé le logo sur Wikipedia, comme non-libre. Ivan.liskom (talk) 06:31, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
Hello, I have one question - can you help me, please? I wrote on slovakia wikipedia article about Anna Stanhope - Seymour (this article on slovakia wikipedia). I found her picture on english wikipedia - this picture. Can I upload this picture on commons? If yes, is thise good method: I choose It is from another Wikimedia project, in section Summary -> Author I give Alberia torkenkluvin, in section Sumary -> Source I give http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Anne_stanhope.jpg or only English Wikipedia? And what I give in section Sumary -> Permission? It will right: This image is in the public domain because its copyright has expired in the United States and those countries with a copyright term of no more than the life of the author plus 100 years? Thank you much for your time, --Amonet (talk) 18:42, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
Hi. This picture could probably be imported on Commons, but first you have to find out when the work was created (and if possible, by whom, and from where the picture has been grabbed). Depending on what you find, the license tag will probably be {{PD-art|PD-old-100}}. I'm afraid I cannot help you much with the import process, which is specific to the source project, I think. I don't know much about that, but you should find what you need on en:Wikipedia:Moving images to the Commons. Regards, --Eusebius (talk) 21:10, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
please stop deleting redirects from Italian names to the approriate English name. Unless you want to adopt Italian as the default language for Wikicommons.... Thans. --User:G.dallorto (talk) 20:00, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
Please stop creating redirections from the main namespace to the category namespace. There is no valid argument for that, sorry. --Eusebius (talk) 20:41, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
Please accept my apologies, according to the admins community it was wrong to delete the redirect, and I won't do it anymore. --Eusebius (talk) 06:37, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
Erechtheum
Great photograph of the anta capital of the Erechtheion - I am considering using it to illustrate an article in the academic journal, The Classicist. Thank you for making such a clear image available for use.
Yours
Richard — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.144.60.23 (talk • contribs) 03:30, 7 July 2009 (UTC) (UTC)
Yes, the use of fleurons (I know only the French term, sorry) on ducal crowns seems rather standard in all Western Europe. Nice CoA! --Eusebius (talk) 21:28, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
Seems Abigor is talking to :-) Only reason for not doing it already was because it would flood recent changes. So I was waiting for admin status for my bot. But seems like that the problem is solved soon. --MGA73 (talk) 20:11, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
Sounds like a $PYTHONPATH problem. We had the same issue on the older stable server. There is a commented line in run_vic.sh, I guess it should be modified, uncommented and copied to run_qic.sh. --Eusebius (talk) 06:26, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
Salut Eusebius, j'espère que tu vas bien dis moi si tu sait si Diti conte ou non remettre mes photos un jour.
--90.62.7.17917:06, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
Je veux bien les restaurer si tu me donnes la liste des noms de fichiers dont tu es l'auteur. Ton message sur la page de Diti était un peu vague, comme il y avait plusieurs images pour les mêmes sites ce n'était pas facile de savoir de quels fichiers exactement tu parlais. Au pire, si tu as toujours les fichiers tu peux les réimporter, maintenant que ce qu'on peut faire ou pas est clair pour toi. --Eusebius (talk) 17:40, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
Arf, j'appréhendais cette question... Les catégories ne sont pas restaurées automatiquement. Ou bien tu les recrées, ou bien tu attends que je les restaure (ça me prendra un peu de temps, donc pas tout de suite). --Eusebius (talk) 22:03, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
salut, bon je vais le faire tu as assez de boulot comme ça
Et voila j'ai remis les catégories des images (j'en ai proffiter aussi pour remettre un peu d'ordre dedans car c'était mélangées) enfin tous est ok bonne soirée.
I'm sorry, this automatic message is apparently sent to the last uploader, not to the creator. I forward it to User:Jyusin, feel free to remove the notice from your talk page. Just don't take it personally (but if you have some info about sourcing, please do share it). Regards, --Eusebius (talk) 22:09, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
Scope change
Salut Eusebius. Would it be appropriate to change the scope on someone else's nomination? IMO the Florida bit prevents the nomination to gather support and Ianaré has been absent since July 7th. Lycaon (talk) 12:08, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
I guess that if everybody else agrees that it is better, then it should be ok. Technically, the set can also be declined as is and renominated with another scope by anybody, but this is just unneeded bureaucracy. Leave a note on the candidate page saying that it has been done because the nominator was absent. Side note, be careful at promotion time, for a VI set (almost) everything has to be done by hand. It should be ok if you follow the instructions here. Regards, --Eusebius (talk) 08:52, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
Cat sync feature
Hi Eusebius. I like the idea of your new bot. The only problem is that I start it myself. If it could take input from e.g. User:Docu/standard.js (a page only admins and I can edit), it would be possible. -- User:Docu at 12:08, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
It has been requested by bureaucrats (as a condition for the bot to run) that it take its commands from a protected page, sorry. I hope that some day, trusted user, not only admins, will be able to edit them. However, I'll arrange a talk page for non-admins to request synchronizations. --Eusebius (talk) 12:14, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
The protection level of the .js page is even better than the one of the page you are currently using (it can't accidentially be removed according to #Permanent_protection). Input on talk pages would work as well, but there aren't that many admins active in categorization. -- User:Docu at 12:24, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
I'm sorry but the protection level is definitely not better, since allows a non-sysop to edit it. I don't understand why you want commands taken from your user space, or for a JS file. --Eusebius (talk) 12:29, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
I did some categorization before and could fix it myself I would break it. -- User:Docu at 13:08, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
I'm sure of that, but it's not a matter of trust here, I mean why you and not the many other people that could also do that? There is no good reason to deport part of the process to a user's namespace. Since I have no authority to decide about this protection thing, I suggest you either 1) request that trusted users be given the ability to edit protected pages and request the trusted user status, or 2) request the sysop status (if this is really what you want). --Eusebius (talk) 13:14, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
Hi, thanks for the info. Uploading pictures about himself is not really a problem on Commons, it wouldn't be considered as self-promotion as such, but most of them are problematic from the authorship/licensing point of view. --Eusebius (talk) 16:26, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
Tours
Hi Guillaume, I have uploaded an edit of one of your Tours palais de justice photos. You can see it here. Lifting the shadows revealed a lot of noise, unfortunately, but I did the best I could, :-) Feel free to use it if you think it an improvement. Regards, Maedin\talk18:07, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
Sure. I used Adobe Photoshop; in the "Image" menu, under "Adjustments", there is an option called "Shadows/Highlights". It has several separate slider adjustments, but basically there is an adjustment for "Shadows" and an adjustment for "Highlights". By adjusting the Shadows only, I was able to increase the brightness while not affecting the sky. Unfortunately, I'm not sure how to do this without using that specific tool in Photoshop. It's one trick I've learned and I'm really not much of a photo editor! Then I used a photoshop plug-in called Noiseware to try and clean up the noise a bit. Do you have Photoshop? If not, I may be able to assist. Maedin\talk06:34, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
I'm working with Photoshop as well, I'll explore those settings... I also have Noiseware, and had noticed the denoising. Thanks for the info! As far as I know, increasing the brightness always increases noise. --Eusebius (talk) 08:43, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
Bonjour
Vous avez mis un tag speeddelete sur une image de l'affiche Quarxs que j'ai chargée. L'ensemble des images que je mets dans la galerie MoBen (mon pseudo d'artiste) sont créées et produites par omi. Elles sont toute vérifiable sur mon site www.benayoun.com ou www.moben.net. Je suis l'auteur de la série Quarxs et de toutes les oeuvres représentées sur ces images. Cela fait plusieurs fois que je charge des images qui disparaissent ensuite. POurriez-vous m'indiquer comment procéder pour ne pas avoir à faire plusieurs fois le travail.
cordialemetn
Maurice Benayoun
ci-joint l'autorisation officielle pour les images issues des Quarxs.
To permissions-commons-at-wikimedia.org
I hereby assert that I am the creator and/or sole owner of the exclusive copyright of the TV series Quarxs and the images related to the series including File:Affiche_Quarxs.jpg [ www.moben.net www.benayoun.com www.quarxs.com].
I agree to publish that work under the free license [11].
I acknowledge that I grant anyone the right to use the work in a non commercial product, as long as they abide by the terms of the license and any other applicable laws.
I am aware that I always retain copyright of my work, and retain the right to be attributed in accordance with the license chosen.
I am aware that the free license only concerns copyright, and I reserve the option to take action against anyone who uses this work in a libelous way, or in violation of personality rights, trademark restrictions, etc.
I acknowledge that I cannot withdraw this agreement, and that the work may or may not be kept permanently on a Wikimedia project.
July, 22, 2009, Maurice Benayoun ( COPYRIGHT HOLDER )
Bonjour, pour ne plus avoir de problème il faudrait envoyer, dans un e-mail à permissions-commons@wikimedia.org, le texte de permission que vous avez mis sur votre page de discussion, avec également un petit mot d'explication (tout cela peut être en français). Si les images sont sur votre site officiel, c'est plus pratique, vous pouvez donner une permission pour "toutes les images qui proviennent du site X", par exemple (envoyez l'e-mail depuis l'adresse de contact du site en question, pour faciliter la vérification), ou encore pour "toutes les images, importées par MoBen, provenant d'oeuvres dont Maurice Benayoun est le titulaire des droits". Une fois que vous avez envoyé cet e-mail, vous pouvez apposer {{OTRS pending}} dans le champ "permission" des images concernées, pour signaler qu'un e-mail de permission est en cours de traitement (les tags "permission manquante" peuvent alors être retirés). Une fois l'e-mail d'autorisation validé par un agent OTRS, ce dernier apposera (normalement) sur les images un nouveau tag, que vous pourrez ensuite mettre directement sur toutes les nouvelles images déjà couverte par l'autorisation que vous avez envoyée (faites attention que ces images soient bien clairement référencées dans votre message). J'espère que j'ai été clair, sinon redemandez ! --Eusebius (talk) 10:15, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
Hi you've started a deletion discussion for the above image as US FOP doesn't cover artworks. Notwithstanding the fact that Kenoria is in Canada and not the US ;-), I've also noticed that Canadian FOP doesn't cover 2D artworks. Please feel free to nominate the image as a copyvio speedy deletion. --JD554 (talk) 09:44, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
Again, sorry about reading the image page too quickly! The image will get deleted when the DR is closed. --Eusebius (talk) 10:09, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
Don't come on my talk page to insult me. You're not on any "black list", but it is a good way to get into one.
There is a huge difference between the file I have tagged and the ones you have listed here: although every one of them should have a valid author field, the files listed here are public domain anyway, because of their creation date. It is different in the case of the tagged picture: if it was first published anonymously, then it is in the public domain (because the picture itself is more than 70 years old) according to the European copyright laws. Otherwise, copyright runs until 70 years after the death of the author, so we need to know his year of death. --Eusebius (talk) 14:10, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
Delete
(Deletion log); 08:49 . . Eusebius (Talk | contribs) restored "File:1912 spanking iillustration.jpg" (6 revisions and 1 file restored: didn't see the malformed DR)
(Deletion log); 08:49 . . Eusebius (Talk | contribs) deleted "File:1912 spanking iillustration.jpg" (User request: Commons:Deletion requests/File:1912 spanking iillustration.jpg: could be construed as illegal art in some jurisdictions, would rather not have it uploaded under my name)
It's my understanding an uploader can request Speedy Deletion, as I did in this case; could you simply re-delete it and remove/close the DR page? I'd rather not have it drag out for a week or two. Much thanks. Max Rebo Band (talk) 15:23, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
Hi, there are only four valid motivations for the speedy deletion of a file, and I'm afraid it isn't one, sorry. Formally, I'm not even sure "user request" is stated somewhere as a valid reason for deletion (it is evaluated on a case by case basis). It is not against you or your request, I'm only trying to do things the right way. However, if you can show evidence that the file is a copyright violation (showing that it was not first published in the US), it could speed things up a lot: "clear copyvio" is a reason for speedy deletion. --Eusebius (talk) 15:45, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
The file was "Kept", and it was not re-uploaded under another's name. I have the right to disassociate myself from this image, and I'd ask that you either re-upload it yourself, or ask someone else to do so, if it cannot be deleted. Max Rebo Band (talk) 03:14, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
Hi The Author tells here that he was working for "Donyaye Varzesh magazine" from 1971 to 1975. (Persian: سال 50 تا 54 در مجله دنيای ورزش كار كردم) the picture was taken on 1973 and I'm Sure it was published. This picture is one Iranian football's historical pictures and was shown at Author's exposition. (Persian: عكسهاي علي كاوهدر بوفه گالري ماه مهر به نمايش درآمدهاند) Iranian football medias are not such professional to have an archive from unpublished pictures in 1970's! I have no doubt about it. All pictures I've uploaded and you tagged {{no source since}} are the same. I don't ever let myself to upload a picture in wiki when it is forbidden. I had uploaded some Iranian Copyrighted pictures before in en.wikipedia while I didn't knew they should be permitted, and after I knew, I myself tagged {{speedy}} for them. so be sure I've uploaded permitted pictures... but I don't know exactly from where I catched some of them. Amirreza (talk) 17:52, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
Hmmm... I guess you told Mardetanha, right? he knows sth about my illegal uploads in en.wiki. I can't find complete info for some of the pictures! are they going to be deleted? Amirreza (talk) 18:02, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
I talked to Mardetanha on fa.wiki. I guess he agrees with me about that the pictures are surely published before 1979, but I can't strongly Proof, so I requested him to delete pictures. Anyway thanks. :) Amirreza (talk) 19:12, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
OK, I'm sorry I couldn't answer more swiftly, I was not online. If you and Mardetanha (yes, he's the only Farsi admin we have, I think) have reached an agreement, I leave the details to him. Regards, --Eusebius (talk) 21:30, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
Hi. What is wrong is: we have no information whatsoever about the source. Without any info about the date and origin of the document, how could anyone say that it is public domain? Unfortunately, if you haven't uploaded the pictures yourself, it is very unlikely that you know more than me about these files... --Eusebius (talk) 14:31, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
Hi. Yes, you can upload those files. I've made a mistake when I nominated them for deletion. Actually, the works of Kulikov are in the public domain in Russia because of the second point listed in {{PD-Russia-2008}}. So, actually, anybody can upload these files. If they were not in the public domain, I would have asked you a formal authorization to publish them, which you could have given only if you were the only heir of Kulikov (but no need to bother about that).
Please allow me to make a suggestion about how to license those files, so that they fully comply with the Commons policies and guidelines. My remarks are motivated by the fact that on Wikimedia projects, it is considered that when a public domain painting is photographed, there is no new copyright. Therefore, the files shouldn't be under Creative Commons or GFDL license, instead they should bear a Public Domain tag (the full guidelines about that kind of stuff is available here: Commons:When to use the PD-Art tag).
If you are the photographer of these paintings: in order to acknowledge that there is no new copyright, you should use {{PD-Russia-2008}} (instead of the current license tags);
If somebody else took the photographs: you should tag the files with {{PD-art|PD-Russia-2008}}, and credit the photographer if you are able to do that.
If you need an admin speaking your language in order to explain you things more clearly and precisely, you have a list of admins by language here (if you need a Russian-speaking admin, I'd suggest EugeneZelenko, very active). If English (or French) is ok for you, feel free to ask here for help or explanations anytime. I hope my reply was clear enough! --Eusebius (talk) 19:49, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
This is a photograph printed in a newspaper, or with a similar technique. Who took the original photograph, when and where was it published? --Eusebius (talk) 16:55, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
The original photo is an grey image, what indeed was use in tidings. My brother is mayor and his village work Slovene Local Goverment. I wrote article in the tidings Porabje and from there get this photo, what is now my property. Doncsecz (talk) 17:41, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
Now whose the original i don't know, only i get in the editorial office from the general editor, because i demands. The image besides passport photograph, anno Irén Pavlics was loses. Doncsecz (talk) 10:46, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
Hi, I'm removing the creator artist template from some works of art, because moving to sub-categories. The problem of those template is that they automatically put the artist category and you cannot remove it from the template unless you wish to risk a hundred or more images becoming suddenly orphan and uncategorized. Some categories of artists are over-over-over-filled, so that's the only way to make them a little clear, especially when there are paintings with more than 100 images, all with different names... please do not undo and if you know a place to discuss the matter (like a Wiki project art) I'll be pleased to do it. --Sailko (talk) 08:16, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
Hi. I know that some people are currently "cleaning" the creator templates from automatic category inclusions, but I have no precise link for you. I guess that the right thing to do would be 1) to remove the category inclusions from the creator templates and then 2) to check categorization of the files using this template. Or maybe the other way around, but in the end the files should transclude the cleaned creator template again. I won't revert you again but I hope you'll do the full process! Regards, --Eusebius (talk) 08:30, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
I agree, but I also understand that this is a "titanic" task for a single user, maybe a bot could help. --Sailko (talk) 19:19, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
Hi,
you just deleted this file File:PeterWilliams(actor).jpg. I transferred it from the english wikipedia to Commons in order to use it in another wiki-project (dewiki).
The original file is here. It is lincenced with several licences I considered suitable for a transfer to Commons.
Could you please tell me, what my mistake was and how the file could be transferred correctly?
--Che010 (talk) 10:29, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
I suppose you get a lot of these questions. You have a thankless job, unfortunately. So first I'll thank you. Thanks for keeping Wikimedia legal.
Having said that, can you help us to get this image back?? We have struggled, literally, for years to find an image for Wikipedia:Artificial intelligence. This one was the best that has shown up. We are very sorry to see it go. Any advice? I don't know how to find out who originally uploaded it, and to help them to correct their error, whatever it was. ---- Wikipedia:User:CharlesGillinghamtalk16:47, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
Hi, thanks for your message and sorry for the delay, I was on a break. I'm sorry, but I'm afraid there's nothing I can do to "make this image legal". Here, by default, both Microsoft Research and Rachid Belaroussi hold copyright over the picture, and what we need is a formal authorization to publish this image under a free license (the "courtesy" statement is usually seen as a one-time permission, unsuitable for Commons). MS Research may or may not agree to that... The standard agreement can be found here, and the formal procedure OTRS. If you are in position of obtaining such a statement from the copyright holder of the picture, please come back to me and I'll help you with the procedure. --Eusebius (talk) 15:57, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
Images en provenance de l'album Picasa
Bonjour Eusebius,
J'ai posé une question à laquelle je souhaiterais ta réponse.
[12]
Bonjour et désolé du retard, j'étais en vacances. Si c'est la question sur Picasa et Flickr, je n'ai absolument aucune réponse à apporter, désolé ! --Eusebius (talk) 15:59, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
Salut, Pourquoi ton bot a-t-il rajouté des images déjà classées ? [13] Pour les 3 qui restent, je m'abstiens de classer les images que je ne connais pas. Cordialement, Yann (talk) 08:58, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
Salut, désolé j'étais en vacances. Est-ce que les images ont été rajoutées une nouvelle fois par la suite ? Si oui, il y a effectivement un problème qu'il faut que je regarde de près, sinon c'était juste un problème de retard de réplication de base de données. --Eusebius (talk) 16:00, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
Hola, lamento muchisimo lo de las imagenes que violan el copyright. ¿Como puedo eliminar las imagenes que lo violan? Y otra cosa, ¿como puedo indicar la licencia de una imagen que ya he subido? Gracias por la ayuda y lo siento otra vez.
I hope it is ok if I answer in English (dime si no entiendes el inglés). In the case of your pictures, if they're actually unfree, there's no way you can make them free. They're just not old enough (I think), and the websites from which you took the picture have absolutely no authority to give you/us any authorization to publish them. They're probably in violation themselves (and they probably don't even know it). --Eusebius (talk) 10:30, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
To indicate the license of a picture: just apply the proper license tag on it. You have to be sure that it is available under this license, however! In doubt, ask. --Eusebius (talk) 10:32, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
File:Mherla37.jpg
También quiero añadir, que me puse en contacto con los propietarios de la web donde encontre la la imagen Mherla37.jpg y me dieron permiso para publicarla siempre y cuando no fuera para comercializar con ella, tan solo con fines informativos. ¿Por que la han eliminado si me dejaban ponerla?
To accept this picture, we would need an authorization from the editor of the book. Again, the website on which you found it has no rights over the picture. --Eusebius (talk) 10:30, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
Entiendo el inglés. Gracias por la ayuda proporcionada. A partir de ahora ire con más cuidado a la hora de subir imágenes, asi que siempre subiré imágenes que haga yo mismo. Gracias de nuevo, y lo siento por las imagenes que hayan violado el copyright.
The deletion is based on the internal statutes of the site here. They are in spanish, but they state that they mention intellectual rights as part of their patrimony (with no mention to any release of rights under a free licence). Somewhere else it states that only the members may use the images, and only with authorization and as long as it isn't "abusive use" (uso indebido). Even more: no matter who this user is or wich position does he hold in the organization, the statues can't be modified except by a meeting of directives in order to do that, so he can't release the rights all by himself.
After checking this, it seemed clear that the site hasn't released the images under a free licence, and that this user does not have the power to do so, so a speedy deletion seems to be the right course of action. I have explained all this to him after deleting the images, in the same time you wrote to me. Belgrano (talk) 14:15, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
Hi, CC-BY and CC-BY-SA are fine (NC and ND restrictions are not), but the file has been deleted for a different reason, and will not be restored: the Flickr user had no right to release this picture under a free license (or at least, we have absolutely no sign of that). The original artist, Willard Wigan, still has copyright on the picture and we would need a formal authorization from him to consider this file ok. Regards, --Eusebius (talk) 20:43, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
Grrr
Per my lousy mail client - this is what I was on about! I really don't know if it is very interesting. If it is I'll work on it & I have another one too (similar). Thanks & regards --Herbytalk thyme15:34, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
I have no idea what they're doing - maybe preventing the Gave from modifying its route or from becoming too large, I don't know. I've left a word on the talk page of Gave de Pau. Want me to duplicate it on the local Village Pump? --Eusebius (talk) 15:56, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
Sure - it was getting "silted up" I guess with spring melt water and so they were removing some of the bed of the river in a lorry (which is in another photo).
First reactions: mostly, they groaned about the image not being categorized and geotagged :-) I'll add the categories they have suggested, I leave the geotag to you. About the subjet, one valuable comment. Rough translation: it doesn't seem to be a gravel exploitation, more probably a river "re-calibration" (what I had supposed) or cleaning works preliminary to the building of a bridge or to the reinforcement of the banks with rocks. --Eusebius (talk) 21:11, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
Please help me!! Why do you delet my pics (Chity1.jpg - Chity4.jpg)?? I'm the photographer myself, some pics are from a friend. please help me to declare everything right. I have just tried to fill out the upload form exactly and it still isn't right. I'm despared.... ~~--b4ssf4n
About the pictures taken by your friends: you cannot upload them without them sending us a written formal authorization. The simple way would be: ask them to create their own accounts and upload the pictures themselves as their own work, as you don't have the right to re-license them yourself. About the other pictures: if you took them yourself, why do you mention other people and websites, and why do they bear copyright watermarks from other websites? If you are the photographer, you should be able to upload the original files, in full resolution, as they came out of your camera, and not derivative works taken from third party websites. --Eusebius (talk) 10:44, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for your reply. www.views-on-jazz.com is my own website!! I will upload pics without watermark now, hope it will be ok this time.--b4ssf4n
Yes, pictures are preferred without watermarks, but here it is more a matter of previous publication. Images already published elsewhere needs a formal authorization (so that they don't get deleted on sight later as copyright violations of your website). If you are the photographer, you can follow the procedure here (please send the e-mail from the contact e-mail of the website to simplify things. When you're not the photographer, we still need an authorization from him before you upload. --Eusebius (talk) 20:52, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
Eyeball vector graphic?
Is there a good eyeball vector graphic that I can use to spruce up thumb|left?
What can I do now to lift the block on my account User:Trojan? I'd like to upload new images (it are no screenshots but pictures taken with my digital camera and if I had no block, I would upload them) Do I have to start a new account? Or else: could you upload the pictures for me?
You've been banned. It means you're out, you can't create a new account, you can't contribute anymore. You had it coming, and for a long time. If you have good reasons to request for a block lift, go to COM:AN. But I see no reason why you should be allowed to come back. --Eusebius (talk) 13:47, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
Okay, it was wrong, but please forget it. I have a reason to come back. I have very nice pictures which I want to upload so that they can be used on Wikimedia projects worldwide. Could you please give me some time to let me prove I'm a good user on Commons? 83.82.233.22516:00, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
You don't get me. For me, you have spoiled your last chance and I WILL NOT UNBLOCK YOU. I don't trust you, and many admins won't either. For me, you've been nothing but disruptive to the community and you're banned, full stop. Ask at COM:AN, dont ask me, you have absolutely no chance. --Eusebius (talk) 16:08, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
I don't really expect to receive a permission by anyone and I am sure we shall be able to delete it for good by August 29. I had nonimated this one for deletion in the firs place, however I could not ignore the request of the uploader, especially as the photo has detailed EXIF data. Sv1xv (talk) 13:28, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
I leave it to you, but maybe a regular DR would be more appropriate and transparent, if there is a debate over authorship. Anyway, I didn't mean to bother you about it. --Eusebius (talk) 13:31, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
Just used one of your images on my blog, Carbon Based
Dear Eusebius,
I've just used one of your shot of the fires in 2008 in the Pelopponese in my blog, Carbon Based, which focuses on climate change adaptation. Many thanks for making this great image available.
This is my friend in Hungary. The tools of her sin.
But if you want it sent approval.
I write that do not use illegal pictures.
opticalmicroscope.jpg
Rajzok01.jpg
is from my personal book.
--Tamasflex (talk) 14:39, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
Hi. For the pictures from your friend: we need an authorization e-mail from him, see COM:OTRS. For the pictures from the catalogue: we need the same kind of permission e-mail, but from Zeiss, unless it can be shown that the artist died before 1938.
Automatic translation in Magyar: Szia. A képek a barátod: szükségünk van a felhatalmazást e-mailt neki, lásd COM:OTRS. A képeket a katalógusból: szükségünk van az azonos jellegű engedélyt e-mailben, de a Zeiss, hacsak nem lehet bizonyítani, hogy a művész előtt meghalt 1938.
Please reply to my email to see your personal address and send the approval my friend in Hungary.
The address to which you should send the permission is: permissions-commons@wikimedia.org (do not send them to my address). E-mails can be sent in any language, but Magyar is probably "risky" but there are several Hungarian volunteers.
Please do not delete pictures!
They will be deleted after 7 days if there is no permission, but they can be restored if necessary.
On Zeiss book is a book published in 1927 and is owned.
Owning the book does not give rights over the pictures, and unfortunately 1927 is not old enough for the book to be "automatically" in the public domain.
If you write the Zeiss company but do not know if I receive an answer.
I want to make a more ample work on microscopes, with more pictures, use all my means of knowledge to do anything further.
Are always locked to finish well.
On Tavcso_mikroszkop.jpg have written approval from that page.
The mention to see the link page.
If you read carefully my "User talk"
you will see that using personal photos or pictures from friends.
I have mentioned I do with optical pictures downloaded from the net.
If I write something pictures to friends and send to me.
My friends have such devices.
Once again please do not delete photos until no more clear that changes the page on Wikipedia.
Anyway, thank you for your contributions. I hope we get a permission from Zeiss. About the pictures from your friends, it shouldn't be too difficult, there is a "standard" permission message here (many translations, but not Magyar, sorry). Please tell me when a permission e-mail is sent. And in any case, if you have a question or a problem, please ask. --Eusebius (talk) 18:19, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
Where to send pictures from my friend's approval?
to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org
I expect to send your email address.
I wrote the company Zeiss, wait response.
It is uncommon for a book of 82 years
that you can not use pictures.
This book appeared in thousands of copies.
I do not think Zeiss company to answer a question like a minor.
Basically advertise the company Zeiss.
Please let the pictures there until receiving approval from the company Zeiss.
Copyright last until 70 years after the death of the creator (that's why he must have died before 1938). Zeiss may answer that they do not consider these illustrations protected... It would be good. Otherwise, another admin will decide whether it is ok or not, but I think they will be deleted in the end. But they will be kept about 1 month, maybe more. Do you want me to try to contact a Zeiss branch? --Eusebius (talk) 19:33, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
Ps:
I struggle to do something and all are blocked.
The system is not good.
Once you link pictures of origin
should not be problem.
Wikipedia is not a business page.
Photos loaded on the page is not lost for those pages where they were unloaded.
Wikipedia must fight to use any pictures for people without education or approved by anyone.
If you have a car and summers require approval to sell the company to photograph?
Too bad they do not know speak English.
I can not express myself well.--Tamasflex (talk) 19:11, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
Sorry, I don't understand you well enough... Just one point: Wikipedia must use only free content. Useful content is not always free of rights, and unfortunately they must be avoided. --Eusebius (talk) 19:33, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
I e-maild permissions from authors to 'permissions-commons@wikimedia.org'. I did not hear back from permissions-commons. The page said I could ask a volunteer to look into it and kind of do a follow up.
I will try to have a look but I don't have much time for OTRS stuff these days. For each picture for which you have sent a permission e-mail, you can put a {{OTRS pending}} tag in the "permission" field. I will tell Commons admin to wait for the e-mails to be processed by an OTRS agent. The processing of a permission e-mail can take up to one month, please be patient. --Eusebius (talk) 21:02, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
salut, oui je me suis aperçu hier que les redirections ne marchaient pas ces pour cela que je les ai retirer et j'ai laissé vide les articles mal nommés.
I have reverted this upload because it was not only the removal of a watermark, but also a severe crop of the background, thus making the derivative a different picture. The original should remain accessible, with the original background. Now there are two versions of the image, one without watermark but with a cropped background, and one with the full background but with a watermark that cannot be removed by cropping. I have nothing against the picture you've uploaded (thanks for your work, it's probably the most usable in an article), it's just that we should keep a version with the original background. I hope you understand. --Eusebius (talk) 13:29, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
Bonjour j'ai uploadé des dessins personnels, et j'ai mis comme source travail personnel mais ça ne vous suffit pas. Qu'est-ce que je dois mettre alors ? --Jerem115 (talk) 16:15, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
Les doutes sont principalement motivés par la différence des styles (et le fait que nous recevons quotidiennement une quantité considérables d'oeuvres protégées sur lesquelles l'uploader a simplement mis "own work" dessus). Si les travaux ont déjà été publiés, une autorisation OTRS serait la bienvenue et éclaircirait la situation. Dans tous les cas, je vous invite à vérifier qu'ils entrent bien dans le cadre du projet Commons. --Eusebius (talk) 08:42, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
Qu'est-ce que je dois faire pour que vous annuliez la suppression de mes dessins alors ?
Mais je vais pas envoyé d'email alors que se sont mes dessins ?!! Ils n'ont pas encore été publié, je les met et vous trouvez toujours quelque chose à me reprocher alors que ces dessins sont de moi ! Toute ma galerie est de moi !
Cette procédure a été mise en place pour éviter que quelqu'un d'autre ne publie des reproductions de vos oeuvres sous votre nom sans votre autorisation. Elle est là pour protéger votre droit d'auteur. Si vous refusez de respecter les règles du projet Commons en la matière, vos images seront supprimées par précaution. --Eusebius (talk) 15:43, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
Isn't the fact that the uploader claims to be both the author ("own work") and the subject ("yeah, that's me showing the guys what a girl is capable of") a clear sign of copyvio? How could her shoot the picture at the same time she shows the guys what a girl is capable of? --Damiens.rf20:32, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
Oh, good idea: let's give the arguments after the DR is closed, it's the useful way. If you have elements showing that the subject lying about being the photographer is more probable than than the photographer lying about being the subject, please share them with us in a DR. But please don't harass the closing admin on his personal talk page. --Eusebius (talk) 08:51, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
Why did you choose to discuss a deletion request in such an unrelated place? It is not a matter between you and me, if you have further elements which might motivate a deletion, express them in a deletion request. --Eusebius (talk) 17:25, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
That "further element" was so obvious that I expected any competent admin would take it into account. Not please stop being such a lazy bureaucrat and delete the file. --Damiens.rf12:17, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
I'm not here to obey your orders. Speedy deletion is out of question, read the deletion policy again (my answer to your argument is as justified as your remark). You know how to file a DR, so please leave me alone. --Eusebius (talk) 18:06, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
FYI
The stable server restoration from backup this week had some side-effects. The crontabs are gone (will rewrite it tomorrow) and my qicvic project access was gone too. I got my access back, but since crontab is gone the bots didn't run. It's late here now (and you are out of the country as well, right?). I just ran qicbot manually. Will do the same for vicbot. --Dschwen (talk) 04:04, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
I'll be away for a few days, yes, and I can't do much, botwise. I'll have a look at it next week, thanks for the notice. --Eusebius (talk) 08:38, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
Salut, j'avais pourtant bien indiqué à l'époque (et elle y est toujours) la source dans la page de l'image : "Source: Wikipedia in English". Il faut savoir qu'à l'époque il n'y avait pas encore le modèle {{Information}} pour les images.
Effectivement quand tu vas sur la page du wiki anglais il n'y a plus rien mais tu peux voir dans l'historique des chargements de février 2003 la ligne suivante : 22:44 Feb 23, 2003 w:User:Nevilley uploaded "w:File:Tpt-mpiece-side-large.jpg" (Trumpet mouthpiece side view large). Voilà, maintenant tu as la source et l'auteur. À toi de voir ce que tu veux faire et de pousser un peu l'enquête éventuellement. ex-Caesius alias Damounsஇ07:37, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
Ben non. Il a uploadé l'image, certes, mais il n'a jamais déclaré en être l'auteur. Elle est sans source depuis son téléchargement sur en:WP, et aurait dû être supprimée depuis belle lurette ! Désolé ! --Eusebius (talk) 18:43, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
Hello, Eusebius. The file linked to in the above header has been marked with {{OTRS received}}, but there has been no complete confirmation of its permission status in the last 30 days. From what I'm able to tell, you were the person who added this template. Would you mind taking a look at this again? If confirmation cannot be found, this file should probably be marked for deletion. This should be the only notification you will receive regarding this image, so long as the comment I added to the image description page is not altered. Thanks! HersfoldOTRSBot(talk/opt out)16:44, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
If you are not an OTRS volunteer or did not add the "received" template to this file, it's possible I made a mistake identifying the correct user. I look for the most recent diff where the template was added, so if you reverted an edit where this template was removed, I can't tell the difference. If this is the case, please let my operator know at w:en:User talk:Hersfold. Sorry for the inconvenience!
Actually the copyright holder himself opted for WP-based fair use, therefore I don't push for undeletion, but you can file a UDEL request if you wish so. I think it is borderline for PD-textlogo but I would not oppose. --Eusebius (talk) 20:47, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
Hi Eusebius. I've evaluated the block and I've unblocked him. I assume good faith and I'll have special attention with the user. Au revoir :) Rastrojo(D•ES) 15:06, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
Bonjour Guillaume,
au sujet de ta photo The Loch Ness and Urquhart castle.jpg sur la page QI candidates:
j'ai tourné l'image de 0,5° CCW et c'est beaucoup mieux (je pense).... et la tour du château devient quasiment droite.
La particule de poussière est en haut à gauche, juste à gauche du petit nuage sombre (il y a deux petits nuages sombres à cet endroit). La tache n'est pas visible sans agrandissement, mais elle apparaît distinctement sous un agr. de 200%.
Si tu 'corriges' ces deux petites choses, je vais promouvoir cette image, qui me plaît.
Meilleures salutations,
Claude, --Cayambe (talk) 07:47, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
Salut, merci pour tes remarques. Pour le tilt je vais recréer l'image avec ta suggestion (mais pas tout de suite), c'est vrai que la ligne de côte va dans le mauvais sens. Pour la particule de poussière, si je t'ai compris, je pense que c'est un oiseau (ça n'a pas la taille habituelle d'une particule de poussière, et je ne la retrouve pas sur les autres photos de la série). Je peux le virer, mais je ne suis pas un grand chasseur :-) -Eusebius (talk) 08:06, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
Are children's cartoons considered out of scope or unencyclopedic? I made a comment in this DR by you. Commons has a category here for other images of children's cartoons. I was just looking at the image from a child's perspective. I thank you for any reply which you can give and only hope that someone will use the images I post on my own userpage one day. With kind Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 01:40, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
Hi. I have seen your remark on the DR, and made no further comments because I simply had nothing to add, what you said makes sense (I wouldn't push for or against deletion, actually). However, I'm not sure it is a children cartoon, and I don't even understand the meaning of the cartoon (but maybe I'm not the target audience, as you said). It would help to have the author explain the meaning and aim of the cartoon, so that it can be assessed whether it is in scope. --Eusebius (talk) 05:53, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
Yes. I suppose it would help if the author gave an explanation here on the meaning of the cartoon. I thought it was fun for children...but of course, it is not a big deal to me whether the image file is kept or deleted. Cheers, --Leoboudv (talk) 06:21, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
Actually, if the author is Roger Flament (as this image would suggest), then it would be in scope by being a drawing of a notable artist. But of course, we need an OTRS ticket to confirm Jerem115's identity. –Tryphon☂14:41, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
Hi I agree that Com. AKG died in 1977. and Com. EK.Nayanar in 2004. We being party workers, were using Com. AKG's photos for so many years. There was no Copy rights/Source Informations added with that. I scanned and copied a party notice to create this file, I still remember. Same in the case of Com. E.K. Nayanar also. Nobody will never check for the copyright/source information of these files, i believe.
Another problem is that, I am doing all this in the small intervals which I am getting in office. So I didnt read the full conditions for uploading a file. One more thing is that I am not getting any idea of using the codes while editing all these things. That are confusing me a lot.
Thanks for your reply.
So the conclusion is, for these two files: you are not the photographer, therefore you have absolutely no right to release them under a free license in your name and declare that you have taken them, sorry! You can say that only when you are the creator of the original work. Somebody else has copyright over them, even if you don't know who. And Commons cares about that.
About the codes: I'm not sure what you're talking about, but if you're talking about the wiki syntax, you were doing things ok in the first place. If you have specific questions on how to do something, please ask. --Eusebius (talk) 06:42, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
I agree that I dont know who took that photos. And I have never seen anybody talking about the license of these photos. So according to you, we cant upload these photos at any circumstances, under any name, (I dont care about my name)??? I entered my name just because it was continuously asking that. We believe that these leaders are leaders of the whole country and I dont know whether anybody is having copyright over their photos. Anyway I am surrendering. I dont know who took those photos. You can delete those photos now itself. No need to keep it for 7 days. Thanks.
About codes, I was mentioning about the syntax itself. in case of any further upload I will ask for help.
That's right, it's not possible to upload pictures for which we don't know the copyright status. When no information about the copyright status of a picture is available, the international default is "copyrighted - all rights reserved". This is why it is not possible, for instance, to upload pictures just grabbed from a random website on the internet: it would be a violation of copyright, unless there is a compatible release statement from the owner. Regards, --Eusebius (talk) 07:13, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
Hi, so by all means, those files are ready for deletion???
If the party committee which issued that document agrees for copying that photo, we can use it here??? Or if the authority of the site (http://pd.cpim.org/2004/0523/05232004_com%20ek%20nayanar.htm) agrees, we can use it??? Because, for us, party supporters, these photos are open to all, we never thought of these international laws... Sorry for all these troubles. And thank you for your cooperation.
To use a file, we need a permission from the copyright holder. If the party declares that they hold copyright over those pictures, maybe because they were taken by a party member on duty, the party member could send a permission, yes. But they should know who took the picture and when, otherwise you understand that it is an ungrounded claim. --Eusebius (talk) 07:34, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
Forgive me my friend, I did a mistake by uploading these photos...
I am really sorry. Who remembers about the 40 years old photographs.
By mistake, I have proposed the deletion of a file you already have deleted. (File:TheEnd.jpg). Now in the page is a deletion notice box for a file that doesnt exist. And i have created an unuseful deletion request page. I apologize for my stupidity. If you could repar this... - Echani (talk) 09:41, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
Hi Eusebius!
Yes, my name is Antxon Gomez
I Think that you see same problems with my pictures.
Por lo visto sabes algo de castellano y prefiero usarlo para explicarme mejor.
¿Los problemas que has detectado con mis imagenes pueden ser devidos a que los permisos estaban escritos en euskara (vasco)?
De todas formas enviaré un email con los email de los grupos que que autorizaban a Wikipedia el uso de las imagenes de sus respectivas WEB sin límites. Otros casos se me hacen más extraños, ya que las imágenes colocadas eran propias.
Un saludo--Gorritxiki (talk) 11:47, 6 September 2009 (UTC)Gorritxiki
Hi, thanks for the confirmation. Please allow me to answer in English, I can read Castillan pretty well but I'm afraid my writing is terrible. Euskara should be ok (although I guess very few of us can read it), the problem is that the permissions should be sent by the copyright holders to the OTRS system (permissions-commons@wikimedia.org) instead of being displayed on the image pages. This is to protect them and keep a secure record of their permission statement. Thanks in advance, --Eusebius (talk) 12:02, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
deletion
You deleted two of my pictures. I would like to know why! I am in the middle of the permit process. I sent an official e-mail/standard form from the author to wikimedia commons on August 26, 2009 3:04 AM. So I am waiting for the reply. As I did with all of my photos. And I am slowly getting all the permissions. AS you might as well see on the page. So why delete these two???
Dvornicsek (talk) 14:02, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
Actually, four were deleted: File:TheWildDuck4.JPG, File:Vanya.soulpepper.jpg, File:Platonov.2.Soulpepper.jpg and File:Platonov.Soulpepper.jpg, and the reason for it is stated in the deletion summary. This is because (as far as I can see) you didn't respond to my last message on the ticket number 2009082510036278. It could be a mistake, however: I might not have received your e-mail if you sent it without replying to my message (without keeping the ticket number in the subject). I will send you a reminder message from this ticket. Please send the permissions again (by replying to my e-mail), or point me to another e-mail that you might have sent. The files can be restored once we get the permissions. --Eusebius (talk) 14:09, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, me too... You've multiplicated tickets, it's a mess in the system! I'll sort it out (for these files at least). Please, please, please don't do this again... --Eusebius (talk) 15:45, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
Hi, Eusebius. I guess you'd better mention it to Darkcat21, the guy who originally posted the file on Commons. Which I did was only a minor edit to the original file. Thanks anyway.--Eurotuber (talk) 15:05, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
Now we understand how to apply dates on the photo. At this moment, we are editing dated on the images we upload. Sorry for our mistakes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Monarchians (talk • contribs) 06:16, 7 September 2009 (UTC) (UTC)
"We"? Who's "we"? Is it a collective account? Do you realize how problematic it is for authorship issues? You cannot credit a collective account for all your stock of photographs! --Eusebius (talk) 06:56, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
I do not know how to edit our images we've uploaded!!!! I do not know how to source the images because these come from our scanning. If you could, could you help us editing these image sources. very thanks.
You must understand that scanning a picture does not give you any right to release it under a free license. What you must provide is the identity of the original photographer and the date of the original photography. Only the copyright holder of the picture has the right to publish them. If you know the author of some pictures, please add the info to the image pages. If you know the date of a historical pictures (those in black and white), please add it! If you only have coarse information about the date of a historical picture (for instance, "before 19xx", because the guy on the picture died in 19xx), add it as well, it might help proving (in some cases) that the original picture is free of rights. In any case: the date on the image page should not be the date at which you scanned the picture, nor the date at which you uploaded it. Only the date of creation of the original photograph (or "unknown", or coarse date information as I said). Furthermore, the "author" field shouldn't be your account name, unless there is a single person behind this account and this person is the creator of the original picture. "Unknown" is better than your account name (although it doesn't help much, it gives less deceptive information).
About your account in itself: if it is a collective account, it should at least be clearly explained on the user page, and never used in the "author" field (unless a file is truly a collective work).
Finally, do not remove problem tags when you add info to an image page.
It would be most useful if you could point me to explanations on how to translate the dates. We'll be unable to assess the copyright status of the files if we don't have the date in the western calendar. --Eusebius (talk) 07:45, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
If I edit all correct, will the problem tags removed?, if false somewhere, tell me immediately, Thank you.
I will leave the "no source" tag on each file which is not for sure in the public domain, even if you provide the author: it will mean that "the source does not guarantee that the file is in the public domain". For instance, when the photograph was taken after 1900 and we don't know when the author died. I will remove the tag from every file whose copyright status is now ok. --Eusebius (talk) 12:01, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
1) Can you point me to the statement where it is said that pictures of the royal household taken by officers etc. are released under a Creative Commons license? 2) No, non-commercial and non-derivative restrictions are not acceptable on Commons. --Eusebius (talk) 12:58, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
Most of the images of the members of the Royal family, even the celebrations and the official ceremonies are taken by the officers, so that is the reason I think that I can apply this template. And what types of the licence do you think it should be in the template?
Don't you think that we are from the royal household? And is there some problem of sources of the images anymore. If has tell us immediately. So we will edit them at once. Thank you for your suggestion. We are so pleasure to have an advice from you.
(indent reset) No, I had absolutely no idea about that! If you represent the royal household, then you can send a permission e-mail (with a statement in this form) to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org (from an official e-mail address so we can identify you) so that the Wikimedia foundation can certify that the license template that you propose is valid. This e-mail would remain confidential (as well as the originating e-mail address), and stored on our secure server. If you want to do that, I would suggest that you choose either a CC-BY or a CC-BY-SA 3.0 license. Both are accepted on Commons and suitable for photographs. You can also release the works in the public domain directly, or choose another license from COM:L. If we can sort that out, it will be much easier to "clean" your uploads. By the same means (OTRS e-mail), it can be certified that your Commons account represents a given public entity, if you wish to make this identity public (it would facilitate the upload of pictures with simply the authority as the source, otherwise Commons contributors might consider them as missing a source).
If you want to send this e-mail in English, I'd be glad to take care of it myself. You can also send it in Thai language, but it will be longer, since there obviously are few volunteers speaking Thai.
Thank you so very much for your suggestions. If there are some problems about our uploading or else. We are going to contact you. Note: about the representing the bureau, I just asked, not confirmed where we from. Sorry for your convenience. Thank you.
Hello again, I have editd the author and source of the problem images already. You can remove the tag from the files and better check them if incorrect something. Thank you.
From what I have seen, all photographs posterior to 1958 are still to be deleted, I'm afraid. Besides, I haven't look at all your images yet. --Eusebius (talk) 16:29, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
Imágen
Pero era una imágen propia ¿o no?
--Ánforas 15:01, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
No, en el sentido que no eres el creador del diseño original, que es protegido. No es posible hacer una copia de un logotipo y pretender que es una creacion propia. --Eusebius (talk) 15:04, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
Oh, bien, ya entendí. Gracias. --Ánforas 21:57, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
Re:Copyvio spotting
Desculpe, por escrever em português meu inglês é fraco. O usuário que carregou as imagens não é o autor delas, as imagens pertencem as emissoras de televisão do Brasil: Rede Globo, Rede Record e Sistema Brasileiro de Televisão. Uma das imagens foi retirada do site da revista Isto É. Cumprimentos. Fabianomsg21:34, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
Yes, I know that, but when there's an {{OTRS pending}} template, it means that the uploader has obtained the permission from the copyright holders and forwarded it to the Wikimedia Foundation. If it is not true, be sure that it is taken care about in the end. "Missing permission" is to be used when the permission e-mail needs to be sent. --Eusebius (talk) 06:38, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
Hi. Thanks for your work, but no, sorry. The owner of the website only gave a right of reproduction. This is very different from a public domain release, and is not enough for Commons (it covers neither republication, modification nor commercial use). --Eusebius (talk) 18:02, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
The author says this: "LAS FOTOGRAFÍAS MOSTRADAS EN ESTA PÁGINA SON PROPIEDAD DEL AUTOR, Y PUEDEN REPRODUCIRSE LIBREMENTE SIN NECESIDAD DE AUTORIZACIÓN Y SIN LIMITACIÓN ALGUNA". Those three last words are "without any limitation". Why do you say he gaves only a right of reproduction? --Unai Fdz. de Betoño (talk) 08:29, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
OK. He appears to be in good dispositions, it would be nice if he could agree to a Creative Commons release (or anything acceptable here). --Eusebius (talk) 09:40, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
the image Ian+jackieb.jpg was photographed by my assistant for our production of Alfred Jarry's Supermale in 1985 at the Theatre Resource Center, and has been solely in my possession since then. Jackie Burroughs and myself Ian A. Wallace agree to have the photo be released as public domain.--209.17.145.12407:12, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
Hi. Two remarks first: please be logged when writing on a talk page, and don't use "own work" statements for works that you didn't create yourself. Since your assistant (Jackie Burroughs?) is the photographer, we need a formal permission from him to release the picture under a free license. If you consider that taking a picture was part of his professional duties and that there was a transfer of rights to the employer (only if there is such a clause in his contract), please send us such a permission as the employer with the corresponding elements. The procedure for sending a permission is described here and an example e-mail is proposed here. Thanks in advance, --Eusebius (talk) 07:26, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
If you leave your session idle, you can be logged out without warning (unless you were in the middle of an edit, in which case you may get a warning when you try to save it). BrianJasonDrake07:53, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
Eusebius, you added a warning to Ian A. Wallace's talk page about the file missing source information. It was not missing; it was just wrong and stated in the wrong way (an "own work" statement instead of {{own}}). Perhaps that confusing warning led him to add source information to Template:Own/doc, which I reverted?
The "missing source" message is used for various purposes, and notably when the authorship of the picture is dubious. I have proposed to use a new tag and message, but there has not been any consensus for it so far. --Eusebius (talk) 08:07, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
Eusebius, a glance at Ian A. Wallace's contributions suggests that many other files have the same problem as this one (at the very least, they have "own work" statements instead of {{own}}), though nothing appears to have been done about this yet; you are clearly better qualified to help him with this than me! BrianJasonDrake07:59, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
Hi Eusebius. Could you tell me the problem with this pic? It's only a coin; it needn't copyright nor licence, it's free domain. I wait for your answer, have a nice day --Manu (talk) 09:30, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
Hi. I have answered you by e-mail because I hadn't seen your message here. Feel free to continue conversation here if you have questions. --Eusebius (talk) 09:31, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
Hi again. I don't understand what you say, I mean, I choose the pic as my own work, because it's a photo of a coin that is mine. The author and designer are included in the information (Bank of Spain and Madrid's Mint). In the other hand, when I choose the licence I select the last one: Public Domain or GFDL. The Spanish legislation doesn't accept coins or banknotes in pesetas as a registered property. Only there's a European directive that says the national side has copyright, but this is with euros, not pesetas. I wait for your answer, regards --Manu (talk) 09:55, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
Hi. About Euros and Pesetas: yes, you're right, that's what I meant. It is irrelevant here anyway. About the issue: maybe it's a simple misunderstanding. Who took the photographs? --Eusebius (talk) 09:57, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
Me. That pics are from my own collection. Anyway, I've just telephoned to the Madrid's Mint legal departament, and they've told me that it's totally forbidden publicate pics of banknotes at the original size, although it's indicate the note SPECIMEN. Pics of coins can be publicated, because in this law (Ley 13/1994, de 1 de junio. Autonomía del Banco de España) in it's 4th section, article 15, paragraph 4, only talks about facsimile reproductions, and a facsimile reproduction of a coin it's impossible, because you need metal and a mint to do that.--Manu (talk) 10:09, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
OK, that wasn't clear, from the file description, that you were the photographer. Everything's ok then, we should just update the file descriptions (for now it looks like the photographs are from the Mint). Sorry for the inconvenience! --Eusebius (talk) 10:16, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
Nope... I really can tell you they are pics of mine. The Madrid'd mint hasn't got pics publicated. The Bank of Spain has (http://www.bde.es/webbde/es/secciones/servicio/billemone/canje.html), you can see them in this link, but only the 1999 series, as information. Moreover, in the Legal Advice of the Bank of Spain it's told that the information (pics, texts, etc.) can be used and publicated, if the result has not economic affairs, and it's told the font (in the description the font is included: Bank of Spain and Madrid's mint) and as you know, wikipedia has not an economic intention. This is the text in Spanish of what I say: "Cuando la información se incorpore a documentos u otros medios que vayan a ser vendidos o cedidos de forma no gratuita, la persona física o jurídica que la publique o difunda bajo cualquier soporte, deberá informar a los compradores y/o cesionarios, que la información puede ser obtenida libre de cargo a través del sitio Web del Banco de España, tanto antes de que paguen cualquier suscripción o precio, como cada vez que pongan a su disposición la información tomada del sitio Web del Banco de España." So, to finish... do I have to complete the description, or can you fix the problem?--Manu (talk) 10:30, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
(indent reset) The problem is fixed, just try to make it clear in the future when you're the photographer (sorry again for the misunderstanding). About the "economic affairs", just for information, any content uploaded on Commons should be under a license that allows any usage, including commercial (because Wikipedia DOES have commercial activities, like selling hardopies of the encyclopaedia). Regards, --Eusebius (talk) 10:34, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
Author is Kopchiowski O.P., uploader is User:Okman, and I haven't found any sign that they're the same person. If you know about such a statement, please point me to it! Side note: I'm sure the Russian and Ukrainian Wikipedias have standard procedures for moving files to Commons. Following them is necessary to both preserve the original information about the pictures and get a well-formed image page once on Commons. --Eusebius (talk) 07:12, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
Hi. All pictures uploaded by User:R.M.A, was used in the article in fa.wiki. The page contained only Publicities about a none-notable Iranian bussiness company. (note that the page has been deleted 5 times) It seems the user is trying to use commons as a picture sharing website. so I nominate them for speedy delition. I was trying to help, not Vandalism. maybe I didn't mention the reason clearly. Is it "A page that falls outside of Commons' scope."? Amirreza (talk) 20:23, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
Hi. I don't have anything against the fact that you nominated these files for deletion. What I said is 1) when nominating a file for deletion, do not remove the existing info, and 2) when it's not 100% obvious, regular deletion requests are better than speedy deletions because it leaves some room for people to explain and argue. In the light of what you say, I'd like to add that whereas the logo should probably be deleted, the two photographs do not seem to be a problem in themselves: the problem is on fa:WP with the re-creation of the article you're talking about, but the pictures in themselves could probably be used in a non-controversial context. They're not attack pictures, they apparently do not break any copyright... Another point: it is not ok to create a WP article about a not-so-notable company, but adding media about it on Commons is ok. The scope of the two projects are a bit different. --Eusebius (talk) 20:45, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
1) Got it. I thought it is like deleting articles in Wikipedia. 2) OK. I see. Thanks for learning these points. I guess Its better to tell you these cases, not to act myself! :-) Amirreza (talk) 23:53, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
Please don't refrain from nominating files for deletion when you think it is necessary, a deletion request can be closed if there's no need to delete. --Eusebius (talk) 08:04, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
Hi. The permissions have not to be shown anywhere on the wiki, but sent by e-mail to the OTRS system. The images from Mr Plazaola that I've deleted were the ones not covered by the e-mail received by the foundation (unless the OTRS agent has made a mistake, which is still possible). Those images can be restored when a permission e-mail is sent about them. NB: when a permission e-mail is sent about an image, putting {{OTRS pending}} in the permission field prevents them from getting deleted (at least for a reasonable time). As soon as I'm told (here would be fine) that a permission e-mail has been sent for a set of pictures, I'll restore them with the corresponding template. Regards, --Eusebius (talk) 17:32, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
I'll wait for a Spanish-speaking OTRS volunteer to process the OTRS ticket, but I'll restore the files in the meantime. Thanks. --Eusebius (talk) 09:57, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
This wouldn't be my first choice, since it is apparently the first batch of uploads by this user. I usually start at 1 day, even for copyvios, unless there are aggravating circumstances. However, I'll not make a scandal if you increase the block to 3 days with an explanation on his talk page. --Eusebius (talk) 13:18, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
After tagging the new uploads as cv, I've simply put a sock-puppet-template on the second account (without blocking him). Seems he stopped then. We'll have to keep an eye on him. --Túrelio (talk) 16:09, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
Unknown languaje
In Commons:Deletion requests/File:Korolev Ivan.JPG you exchanged some words with another user in a languaje that I don't know. The deletion request is old and should be closed, but I would need to know what did he say to understand the whole thing. Can you translate his quote into english? If possible, a direct translation would be better than a "S-Serge says that...", to avoid possible misunderstandings. Belgrano (talk) 02:54, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
Yes but the thumnail, which has writing - "Rabbi" - does not match the JPEG which has no writing. The image Name is the same in the thumbnail and JPEG. Www3cubed (talk) 17:50, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
Estimado, subi una fotografia http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:FahrenheitCumbreRock.jpg que me pertenece al wiki y puse las licencias de CC. Aun asi me dice tu mensaje que estas no estan especificadas, me podrias explicar que esta erroneo?
Muchas Gracias
Mr. I uploaded the image http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:FahrenheitCumbreRock.jpg witch licence its mine. The picture is mine and I put under the Chilean law that it is a public domin and then under CreativeCommons the type of licence. So. Can you help me to find what is missing? I think I did it right. What is missing?
Thanks
--crokis.chile
Hi, please allow me to reply in English (but you can write in Spanish, no problem). There might be a confustion just because you put "The Band" in the source field. Did you take the photograph yourself? PS: please limit yourself to on-wiki communication (talk pages, not e-mail) when you can. --Eusebius (talk) 20:11, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
Im sorry about the email. I received one saying I can contact you both ways. Sorry. I'm a bands friend working with them, and the picture was taken by one of the members. I can use that image for any use and the anyone can use it too. There is no problem with that. So is not a good label "From the Band", what is a good way to say the author? Do yo want to upload to Flickr and then put a link to the usage over there? Thanks, again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Crokis.chile (talk • contribs) 01:54, 11 September 2009 (UTC) (UTC)
"From a band member" is probably a proper value for the source field, but then the "problem tag" applies: Commons needs a written authorization from the photographer, because he is the copyright holder. Since you know them, there should be no problem, only a little procedure: could you ask the photographer to send an e-mail to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org with a permission in the form of this one (here is the Spanish version), specifying the release license? This is what is meant by "missing permission". Thanks in advance! --Eusebius (talk) 07:07, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
Oh, and PD-Chile was not applicable to this case, it is not for releasing a work into the public domain, only for works that are in the public domain for a reason stated in law (like when the author has been dead for 70 years). --Eusebius (talk) 07:10, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
Ok, give me a couple of days and everything will be ok, Thanks. No PD-Chile and the form filled. Thanks.
When you have sent the permission e-mail for a given picture, you can add {{OTRS pending}} in the permission field of the image page, and the image shouldn't be deleted (unless the permission is not ok). I'll do that for you. About the e-mail itself, it can take a while before it gets actually checked. --Eusebius (talk) 17:49, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
Hello Eusebius! Could you please undelete the above portrait (you deleted it in May due to missing permission). We have recieved a permission (ticket 2009081810013271) in permissions-commons-de. I will correct the license/OTRS-ticket-info soon afterwards. Nillerdk (talk) 07:07, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
Hi. Honestly, I didn't see at first that the stated author was your grandfather. Anyway, it would be nice to send an e-mail with a formal permission, declaring that you are the only living heir of your grand-father (otherwise, a permission from each one of the living heirs is needed) and then including a standard permission statement. If you're actually the only one, it will be rather simple. Otherwise, you would have to contact other people. Of course, this permission doesn't guarantee that everything will be kept, because I think many of these pics will be considered out of scope at some point (not every single one of them has historical interest, you must admit). Regards, --Eusebius (talk) 08:28, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
If you're the only heir, I guess it's ok if you just state in the image page that the author is your grandfather and remove the problem tags. --Eusebius (talk) 09:44, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
VECCHI EDITORE, Registered trademark
"Ciao Fabryeditor,
hai caricato parecchi file che sono violazioni di copyright e lo hai fatto malgrado le nostre richieste di non farlo e nonostante i nostri avvertimenti. Se non smetti di caricare immagini che non sono distribuite con una licenza libera sarai bloccato. Vedi Commons:Licenze per la politica sul copyright di Wikimedia Commons. Per favore lasciami un messaggio se hai ulteriori domande.
Eusebius (talk) 10:19, 21 September 2009 (UTC)"
Buongiorno Eusebius, si approfitto della tua gentilezza. Un marchio registrato è tutelato dalla legge quindi può essere benissimo incluso nella pagina di Wikipedia della società proprietaria del marchio stesso. Vedi i marchi delle case editrici Mondadori, Bertelsmann, ecc. Come faccio a caricare un marchio registrato su Commons? Mi aiuteresti tu? Grazie--Fabryeditor (talk) 08:58, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
Hi. Sorry, I don't speak Italian so I'll answer in English. Basically, Wikimedia Commons doesn't care about trademark laws, only copyright laws. The logos you have uploaded are protected. In order for us to accept them, a valid permission (release under a free license) must be sent to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org by the copyright holder (owners of the logo), as was explained on your talk page (detail of the procedure, example of permission statement). Otherwise, we cannot keep the images because they could be considered as copyright violations in some countries. Local Wikipedia may or may not accept such images under "fair use" status, but this is not possible on Commons. --Eusebius (talk) 09:18, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
The license statement says: "I, the copyright holder of this work ...", which means that I made the picture myself. The license template is called "self". So please, don't bother me with messages like "this media may be deleted". Thank you. --Egg (talk) 11:42, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
Hi. The license template being automatically generated at upload, on Commons a specific statement is required (for which your current message on my talk page is enough, of course). You have no idea how many images with "self" license tags are just grabbed from the net. Sorry for the inconvenience, anyway. --Eusebius (talk) 12:00, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
Hi. In theory, yes, it could be ok: there could be an initial permission covering a number of pictures (say by instance, "all paintings from X" or "all pictures of website Y") and the user might be able to use the same ticket ID for her future uploads. But in this particular case, there is an issue because those files are not covered by the stated ticket. Thank you for pointing it. --Eusebius (talk) 21:02, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
I simply when is some rule silly, so him break - and in addition, just "civil disobedience" was at the beginning every changes.
Mine opinion is, that the visual recorded information (artistic photograph is other case) simply can not be "owned". Therefore consider copyright behind pure nonsense in the event of documentary photographs.
If nature she wanted, to people stupidly and herd followed it what are they who will dictate, never go be without someone would reason and brain each individual.
My life motto: "Silly rules be by of what to tamper." Firstly when is that a for welfare things.
It is your right to deny the legal concept of copyright. It is just not the case of the Wikimedia Foundation, which has the right to enforce policies accordingly on the projects they own. You have the right to participate to these projects only if you abide by their rules. If you refuse to do so, you'll be prevented from contributing because you represent a threat to the normal behaviour of the project (it is beginning to be the case). If your intention is to make a point about the vacuity of copyright laws, do it on your own website. If you think I'm harassing you or being too personal in the way I treat issues, please feel free to report my behaviour at Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems. --Eusebius (talk) 20:00, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
I'm sorry, you back to me shelter very considerately, namely appreciate.
I didn't remowe the tag, gest check the revision history of the page. How could you acuse me whithout even checking if it was me or not? First check then edit my talk page, and remowe the "Dont remove nsd or nld" template from my page.
About the license,plese explain to me the diference betwen the file I uloaded and these ones :600px Arsenal con cannone.png, 600px_Bianco_con_diagonale_Blu_e_cerchio_Giallo_e_Blu_con_D.png and 600px_Bianco_e_Verde_orizzontale_con_leone_Dorato.png those to are derivative work of the actual logo (en:Arsenal London, en:Dynamo Kyiv, en:Sporting CP) to me it seams they didn't get permission from there owners.
Luciandrei (talk) 05:34, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
Sorry, you're right, I didn't pay enough attention to who did what. About the other files: as far as I can see, none of them does contain any significant element directly coming from the official crests (cannon totally different, as well as the "D" and the lion), although in the current file I cannot differentiate the features of your file from the features of the official logo. Therefore it is not original enough to be a new interpretation of the concepts behind the logo, it is a derivative work. If you question this evaluation, you can request a debate by transforming the problem tag into a regular deletion request and explaining your point of view there. --Eusebius (talk) 05:47, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
Can I upload a new version of the image were the wings are solid, whitout the orizontal white lines and a new ball ? Would this maket it original ? ––Luciandrei (talk) 06:36, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
How many times does one have to email permission in this place? We did so TWICE. First on May 3 2009 when the image was first uploaded. But then warnings appeared in June alleging that no permission had been filed, so it WAS RE-SENT July 18 2009. But there was never any acknowledgment and the warnings remained. Now you have deleted it. VERY FRUSTRATING. Please see copy of the original of the two emails below: (I have bolded the actual permission from the copyright holder.) Please restore the image without further delay. --Innermusic (talk) 19:46, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
Hi. I understand that it may be frustrating, sorry for that (although leaving a note on Commons:OTRS Noticeboard, as suggested in the message, could have hurried things). However, strangely, I cannot find these e-mails in the OTRS system, although the e-mail address you're referring to is the correct one. I cannot restore the picture though, because the text I can see here does not contain a permission strong enough to allow us to publish an image under a free license. You can find here an example of a valid permission. It is necessary that either an actual license is mentionned by the copyright holder, or that he explicitly consent to give the right to anyone to use the picture for any purpose, including derivative works and commercial use. This is why an e-mail such as this one would not be accepted as a permission by an OTRS agent. I understand that it must be difficult to obtain another statement from the copyright holders, and I'm sorry about that.
If you happen to send other permission e-mails to OTRS, please let me know (or leave a note at the OTRS noticeboard), so that I can check that the e-mails are properly received on the platform. --Eusebius (talk) 21:20, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
I kept it since they need the file for the infobox they are using, I don't really know a way the could do it without the need for that file so they need it this way.
But I do agree with you, if it wasn't in use in this way I would have deleted it.
No pb, I had no strong feelings about it. I think it was unused when I nominated. I put this image in the "harmless noise" category :-) --Eusebius (talk) 17:22, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
Hi. I don't speak German, so please let me answer in English. For this image to be hosted on Commons, we must have a permission e-mail from their owners, because "fair use" is not allowed here. Such permissions may be difficult to obtain, but maybe you have useful contacts. On en.WP, though, fair use is allowed and you can upload logos directly there. The logo won't be on Commons, and it will be accessible only on the English Wikipedia. --Eusebius (talk) 12:53, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for your quick answer - yes it is always a problem with logos - which is a pitty concerning the articles for this organisations. --Gruß Tom (talk) 13:04, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
Mongenan et photos
Bonjour,
non, je ne peux rien vous confirmer du tout, pour la bonne raison que rien n'a été envoyé pour le moment. Je dois reparler tout à l'heure au téléphone avec la propriétaire (qui m'a déjà donné son accord par téléphone et à qui j'ai envoyé le formulaire pré-rempli) afin de lui expliquer comment faire un copié-collé sur internet et envoyer elle-même le mail, en espérant qu'elle y arrive. :) C'est vous dire les efforts qui doivent être fournis pour avoir des autorisations en "bonnet duform". cordialement, JJ Georges (talk) 13:11, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
Bon. Merci de me faire signe quand le mail aura été envoyé, ou bien lorsqu'il sera clair qu'il n'arrivera pas. À l'avenir, n'uploadez pas d'images avant d'avoir obtenu une autorisation compatible avec COM:L. --Eusebius (talk) 13:34, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
Comment voulez-vous que j'aie les url des images uploadées (détail nécessaire pour le formulaire) avant de les avoir uploadées ? JJ Georges (talk) 13:51, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
La règle de base : ne publiez pas des contenus sous une licence donnée sans en avoir le droit, c'est un délit. Les variantes : l'autorisation peut être donnée par rapport à un fichier en pièce jointe ou publié sur un autre site. Une petite procédure utile :
Vous avez une photo pour laquelle vous souhaitez obtenir une autorisation avant de l'importer sur Commons;
Vous envoyez la photo par mail à l'ayant-droit, en lui demandant de copier-coller le texte standard d'autorisation, avec mention d'une licence libre, en conservant l'image en pièce jointe et en mettant permissions-commons-fr@wikimedia.org en copie;
De toutes manières, la procédure est si laborieuse (essayer d'expliquer les détails du formulaire à un ayant-droit, ou bien demander son renvoi au Sénat ne sont pas des choses que je souhaite refaire tous les jours) et je suis si peu convaincu par certains détails de la philosophie du "libre" qu'une fois que le cas de ces photos sera réglé, je ne pense pas en remettre sur commons avant un certain temps. JJ Georges (talk) 14:07, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
Heu, c'est pas ce que je voulais dire ! Juste que pour les utilisateurs qui veulent importer des images déjà existantes sur un sujet donné, c'est toujours compliqué au niveau des droits, par opposition aux utilisateurs qui importent les photos qu'ils ont l'occasion de prendre par eux-même. --Eusebius (talk) 15:11, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
Je n'aurais même pas essayé de m'en occuper, si je n'avais eu d'un seul coup l'étrange lubie de chercher des photos de Georges Marchais, Jacques Chaban-Delmas et Alain Poher. Il faut que j'arrête, d'ailleurs, sinon je vais finir par aller importuner les ayant-droits de Michel Jobert... Bref, une fois que j'aurais résolu ces problèmes, on n'est pas prêt de me revoir m'en occuper. JJ Georges (talk) 16:50, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
Ok, je m'en souviendrai, si je remets un jour des images françaises dont je ne suis pas l'auteur ou qui ne sont pas dérivées d'autres fichiers (ce qui n'est pas sûr du tout). Précision, si c'est vous qui gérez : le formulaire n'est pas dans le corps du mail, mais sur un document word que la propriétaire m'a envoyé en pièce jointe et que j'ai ensuite forwardé. En ce qui concerne les photos d'Alain Poher et Gaston Monnerville, je devrais avoir la permission formelle du Sénat dans le courant de la semaine prochaine, j'espère (la responsable m'a déjà redonné son accord de principe). Si tout va bien, je devrais avoir quelques images supplémentaires de politiciens français venus des archives du Sénat, et ensuite je laisserai un peu couler, histoire de ne pas m'user la santé. Petit détail si ça vous intéresse : les archives du Sénat français semblent beaucoup plus coulantes que celles de l'Assemblée nationale pour confier/céder des documents. JJ Georges (talk) 10:08, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
OK, merci de votre travail. Pour le document Word a priori ça ne pose pas de problème (ce n'est pas moi qui gérerai je pense). --Eusebius (talk) 12:01, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
Ma parano naturelle me fait tout de même remarquer que les 7 photos venues du château de Mongenan (Chaban-Delmas et consorts) sont toujours en "OTRS pending", donc j'espère qu'il n'y a pas de souci (je ne sais pas à quelle vitesse c'est géré habituellement). JJ Georges (talk) 14:41, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
Ca va lentement. On considère en général un mois comme un délai raisonnable compte tenu des messages à traiter et du nombre de volontaires. Ce n'est pas un problème si la photo reste en {{OTRS pending}} un bon moment. --Eusebius (talk) 17:07, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
Hi Eusebius. I've been maintaining The Sour Notes wiki page for over a year and have until recently had no problems with images being deleted.. I am creator of the page and creator of who the page is about...The Sour Notes... I'm not very good at wiki yet, and I don't want to have my access 'locked' because I keep having deleted images re-uploaded... Can you tell me how I can successfully upload a photo that I, myself have taken of The Sour Notes properly? I can't seem to find out how to do it, and when I read the wiki permission stuff, it just confuses me greatly...
Please help if you can...
Thanks,
a cute little ruin
OK... First, communicating when receiving warnings or deletion notices is a loooot more efficient than ignoring them! This would have helped solving this issue more calmly. When you were told that your images were missing a permission statement, you did nothing, so yes, the images got deleted, and yes, uploading them again has been considered a copyright violation.
About the pictures, they need a permission e-mail to be sent to our OTRS system. The standard statement can be found here and details about the procedure and the OTRS system are here (as pointed in the warning messages that you have received). Those pictures probably need a permission from somebody (maybe you) able to speak for the group. The safest way is to send the e-mail from the contact address of the official website of the band, if there's such a thing. The pictures credited to individuals (Eric Morales and Jared Boulanger, they can't both be you!) need a similar permission from them.
Good evening Eusebius. As we talked about the copyright at coins, in this case, the Slovak koruna, I have to tell this: the picture is mine (you can see them at the description), and the original source is the Central Bank of Slovakia, or the Kremnica Mint in the case of the coins. There, it's regulated by the Copyright Act No. 383/1997, and says that "the published set of full wordings and translations is not allowed for use for commercial purposes". In the other hand, a coin, or a banknote, is a public document to the bearer which is issued by the National Bank of a country and it's the legal way for payments. So the tag I used, Template:-PD-SlovakGov-, it's valid, because the Law No. 618/2003 in it's 3rd article, paragraph b), speaks about "public documents".
And, in the Article 1, paragraph (4) from the National Bank of Slovakia's decree (No. 456/2001) allows to the reproduction of coins in electronic form and on a film or other material (a scanned picture of a coin, it's an electronic reproduction). And the tag of the European Central Bank it's correct because the pictures of the banknotes are taken from there.
Please, if you've got any doubt with other pictures tell me and I'll try to explain you. Best regards--Manu (talk) 20:21, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
Hi. Let's talk only about that image, ok? 1) BCE tag. What on earth could the BCE have to do with this picture?? It's not a euro coin, right? And 2) If you were to defend the idea, in a deletion request, that a coin is a document, I am pretty sure that you wouldn't manage to have the picture kept. Maybe it is a problem with the translation of the original law, but no, a coin is not a document. --Eusebius (talk) 08:08, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
OK, thanks for the information. Sorry for the inconveniences, all Slovak coins' tags uploaded have been changed--Manu (talk) 10:07, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
Is the decree you're pointing to in the image page referring to coins or currency specifically, or do you plan to ask the bank for a confirmation? In both case, could you let us know, so we can update the guidelines for other users? --Eusebius (talk) 11:51, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
The decree is for information only, about the reproduction of metallic coins. Anyway, I'll ask for permission for all the images I've uploaded: Slovakia, France, Spain...... this last one has been sent, I'm waiting for confirmation.
You've uploaded French francs? These ones are definitely copyrighted, and if you get a free license release from the Banque de France, I'll be very very impressed... Please just don't upload derivative works of coins unless you know they're public domain or you have sent a valid formal authorization from the emittor. Thanks in advance! --Eusebius (talk) 12:04, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
Hi Eusebius. Sorry for not answer you, but I didn't receaved a message. My apologizes. About the French franc, I will ask for a permimission, so be free to delete the pictures. Now, I just receaved the permission for Slovakian banknotes. I contacted with the Central Bank of Slovakia and they told me banknotes can be publicated in basis to the Act No. 659/2007 [15] For coins the same, in this decree No. 456/2001 [16]. Now I have to contact for the permission of the designer of coins, Mr. Drahomír Zobek. Tomorrow I'll send him a fax asking for permission and I'll tell you what happens. Anyway, banknotes can be reproduced.--Manu (talk) 18:45, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
By the way... to ask for the permission to the Banque de France, could you make a letter for me in French? My French is quite poor...--Manu (talk) 18:53, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
About the slovak case: I have only had a brief look at the shorter decree, but this is very, very restrictive (it makes it impossible to have a banknote be the subject of a picture):
Reproductions of all or parts of the Slovak banknotes (hereinafter the “Banknote”) can be made and used only as one-sided black-and-white, or one-sided colour photographs, drawings, paintings, films, or other types of image, provided that the focus and motif of such reproductions is not the banknotes themselves, and that they do not provide a close-up view of the banknote design; images of details of the parts of banknotes, provided these are smaller than one half of the area of the design of the reproduced banknote.
About the Banque de France: I can translate a letter for you if you wish, but honestly, I wouldn't even bother... --Eusebius (talk) 21:12, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
No, the decree say that they must not be the main subject of the picture. It is ok if they appear, in an accessory way, in a picture about something else, but you can't make an illustrative picture of them. --Eusebius (talk) 21:50, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
Salut, je savais qu'il ne fonctionnait pas (je ne peux pas le réparer tout de suite, mais c'est prévu), mais je ne savais pas pour cette image rajoutée... Je vais jeter un coup d'oeil, merci. --Eusebius (talk) 07:46, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
Je crois que c'est parce que ComputerHotline l'a mis dans un template perso et qu'elle apparaît dans trop de pages. Je vais voir avec lui s'il ne peut pas utiliser une autre version du fichier (parce que j'ai la flemme de chercher une solution programmatique). --Eusebius (talk) 08:33, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
Undeletion request
Hello, Eusebius
I received this message from you:
"Your image or other content, File:DJ Nutritious.jpg, was recently deleted in accordance with our process and policies. You have recreated this content after it was deleted; please do not do this. If you would like to contest the deletion, please visit Commons:Undeletion requests and follow the instructions there to have the deletion reviewed. Recreating deleted content outside of process is not a good idea, and doing so repeatedly may be cause you to lose the privilege of contributing here. Thank you for understanding."
Hi. This image is credited to Nick Fitanides on Flickr, and is under an "all rights reserved" license. If you are this person, you can either:
Change the license on the Flickr license page, to either CC-BY or CC-BY-SA (Creative Commons Attribution or Creative Commons ShareAlike);
Or, if you want the Flickr license to stay as it is but release the image under a free license on Commons, you can send an authorization e-mail to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org, where a volunteer will verify that you actually control this Flickr account.
If you are not Nick Fitanides, you have to get his permission (in one of these forms). I hope this helps. Let me know if you do something about that, so that I can restore the picture. --Eusebius (talk) 18:55, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
I am not Nicholas however, I already own rights to this picture. What is the course of action in this case?
I guess the best way is to explain the situation in an OTRS e-mail, but I'm afraid no OTRS volunteer will take the risk to get in the middle of a copyright disagreement between you and him. --Eusebius (talk) 20:56, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
There is no copyright disagreement, Nicholas has agreed to whatever is necessary to make this image available. From what I understand about wiki thus far, I believe the best situation for all parties is to link to Flickr, display on Wiki, and subsequently credit the photo to Nick - though he would prefer not to remove the 'all rights reserved' status. He has offered to remove the image from Flickr if that helps. What is your suggested method of action here?
Also, it seems as though the only way to use an image on wiki is to release it into the cyberspace for continual re-use and even modification. Is there no way to leave the image's copyright status intact, yet still have it display on the wiki without releasing it on commons under a free license?
No, there's no way to leave an image for use on the Wikipedias without releasing it under a free license (save a few "fair use" exceptions on some local wikis, but this picture doesn't qualify). It is the core principle behind the projects of the Wikimedia Foundation. --Eusebius (talk) 05:28, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
If you want to use it on the Russian Wikipedia with a "copyrighted fair use" license, you have to upload it directly on the Russian Wikipedia. To have it restored on Commons, we need a formal permission e-mail, as I explained to you in my e-mail. Summary: on Commons, the picture has to be under a license allowing commercial use. On the Russian Wikipedia, it is not necessary. Side note: talking about the same issue to multiple persons might not be the best idea to understand and solve the problems, but that's only my opinion. --Eusebius (talk) 21:34, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
hallo Eusebius, offenbar gibt es probleme mit menem hochgeladenen Bilder. Ich habe allerdings die Erlaubnis, diese Bilder in dieser Form zu verwenden. Wie mache ich es richtig, bin schon ganz verzweifelt! Liegt es nur an den Wasserzeichen oder Copyrights auf den Bildern? Das letzte Wasserzeichen auf dem Bild Chity12 "BKY" bin ich selbst!!! ich bitt um Hilfe!! ----b3ssf3n 13.10.2009
Hi. I don't understand German at all (and online translation does not seem to provide acceptable results here). Could you request help for a German-speaking admin instead? You can find some here. --Eusebius (talk) 12:48, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
Ok, I will talk English with you.
Well, as I said before, there seem to be some problems with the photos which I uploaded. I tried my very best to declare everything right! Why don't wikimedia accept the pics? Is it only because they are watermarked? I'm allowed by all photographers to use the photos for the wikipedia entries which I made. In fact, the last photo which I uploaded has got my own watermark BKY, it's me!! How can I declare everything right? Please help me, I'm dispaired!!!
I believe that you managed to do everything fine with File:Chity.jpg, right? Just do the same (details of the procedure here, for the record). Or maybe the e-mails have been sent but you didn't put {{OTRS pending}} on the pictures? If so, tell me. About your own pictures: Please upload them without the watermark, it's better (they will be removed anyway)... If it has been published elsewhere already, but you are the photographer, it would be better to send an authorization e-mail for it as well (for instance if it is published on a website that you manage, send the permission e-mail in your name, from the contact address of the website). Just ask again if something's not clear or if you still have questions. --Eusebius (talk) 14:04, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for your replay, Eusebius. I will go the easy way and use the approved photo chity.jpg for my new created wikipedia entry, and not upload a new one. I hope to do everything right the next time. Thanks for your help.
Bonjour Eusebius, Je m'adresse à toi car tu avais fermé les MVR de septembre. En voulant contester le résultat d'une récente MVR (en page de discussion VIC list), je me suis aperçue que les clôtures de cette nuit ne semblaient pas avoir été faites selon la procédure MVR, avec le décompte pour chacune des candidates dans chaque page de revue (comme la page de septembre des Closed MVR en donne l'exemple). Elles ont été traitées comme des candidats simples ; cela concerne notamment les macarons, mais aussi l'escalier à double hélice du Vatican et Gandhi. Peut-on y faire quelque chose, maintenant que le VIC bot est passé ? J'ai aussi posé la question à Yann. Merci par avance, --Myrabella (talk) 05:52, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
De ce que je vois, ce sont quand même les bons candidats qui ont été promus, je ne me trompe pas ? Dans ce cas, je pourrais juste modifier les pages de candidats pour le faire "dans les formes", + un petit rappel sur la page de discussion des candidats, ça irait ? --Eusebius (talk) 07:03, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
Merci de ta prompte réponse. Il y a un problème avec la promotion pour le scope "Macaron", me semble-t-il, que je te retrace là in English : "I contest the result of the MVR for the scope "Macaron" : there were two candidates, Commons:Valued image candidates/Macaron 1.jpg and Commons:Valued image candidates/Macarons 001.jpg. The second image has been promoted, but the first one received one support that hasn't been counted. So the result is "Undecided" (1/0 each) IMO, and I contest the promotion." Pour les autres, ce que tu proposes serait parfait. La page de synthèse "Closed most valued reviews d'octobre 2009" sera-t-elle alors alimentée automatiquement ou faudra-t-il le faire à la main ? --Myrabella (talk) 07:20, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
C'est à faire à la main, je vais m'en charger. Je m'occupe des macarons, je laisserai un mot sur la page de discussion des candidatures. --Eusebius (talk) 07:50, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
Hi, thanks for bringing that to my attention. It was a mistake, I didn't see the OTRS ticket on the talk pages. I've replied on the undeletion page, I restore the images. --Eusebius (talk) 13:24, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
Bonjour Eusebius,
Comme vous le demandiez, j'ai envoyé les autorisations pour les photos.
( à " permissions-commons@wikimedia.org " )
J'avais d'ailleurs donné les autorisations au moment où j'avais téléchargé ces photos, en juillet 97.
J'espère que tout est correct... Tout ceci n'est pas simple pour un contributeur occasionnel qui, comme vous, est "très occupé dans la vie réelle"
Avec mes salutations
--musicmusic (talk) 15:41, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
I need help with my article and my pictures. I see you are administrating it. They got deleted. I want them back. If possible but don't know how to send you a message.
Do I do it this way? sorry for the trouble.
thx --Dustbug (talk) 10:26, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
Hi. Yes, this is the right way to contact me. About your file: They depict works of art by Koumy, this is why we need a formal permission from him to release these pictures under a free license. Can you please tell me how you obtained the photograph, so that we can decide precisely what to do? --Eusebius (talk) 11:01, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
The artist is a friend of mine. Another friend of him made the pictures together with the artist and gave them to me. If you want his permissions he can mail them to you or where it should be mailed to. thx - --Dustbug (talk) 13:50, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
Then we need permissions from both the artist and the photographer. They should write their permissions in this form (with compatible licenses) and send them to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org. It would be nice to find a way to send both permissions in a single e-mail (but with all e-mail addresses in carbon copy). On your own, you have no right to release those files under free licenses, and we have no right to host them without those two permissions. Regards, --Eusebius (talk) 14:54, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
Do I send this e-mail with the permissions of both before or after uploading them again? Or do I request an undeletion of my files? And then send this permissions? What do you mean with compatible licenses? thx--Dustbug (talk) 12:25, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
First, with "compatible license", I mean that (to simplify) both copyright holders should agree on the same license. If one of them says "GFDL 1.1 only" and the other one says "CC-BY 2.0 only", we have a problem. I would suggest them to agree either on "CC-BY" or "CC-BY-SA", they're both ok and suitable for pictures (there are other choices though).
About the timing: 1) send the permission e-mail, with either attached JPEGs or links to deleted images on Commons or links to pictures available somewhere else on the internet, then 2) tell me that the e-mail has been sent and I'll restore the picture. Formally, we should wait for the permission to host the picture. --Eusebius (talk) 12:54, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
Yes. That one, and 4 other pictures I attached to the mail. They all got deleted in the article, or from my media. --Dustbug (talk) 10:28, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
File:Pharyngeal jaws of moray eels.svg est l’image du jour, vu que personne ne l’avait fait, j’ai crée la description du jour. J’ai vu après coup, que tu avais fait une traduction dans la description. J’avais déjà un doute pour la traduction de Pharyngeal, j’ai mis « pharyngienne » et toi « pharyingeales ». Sais-tu lequel de ces adjectifs est le bon ? J’ai aussi posé la question sur le bistrot des biologistes sur la Wikipédia. Cdlt, VIGNERON * discut.14:26, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
Salut, je dois t'avouer que j'étais pas bien fier quand j'ai traduit ce mot. Apparemment en français on a pharyngal (également dans le dico de l'Académie pour le concept phonétique), peut-être que ça s'applique ici ? --Eusebius (talk) 15:41, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
Sur Googles books, on ne trouve aucune occurrence de "mâchoire pharyngale" et 26 pour "mâchoire pharyngienne". Pharyngien me semble donc plus appropriés (surtout qu’est aussi présent dans le TFLi/DAF 9e : [18]). J’attends une confirmation des spécialistes mais a priori c’est bon. Cdlt, VIGNERON * discut.16:14, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
Une demande d'orientation
Bonjour Eusebius, En tant qu'admin, tu t'y connais en matière de respect du copyright de l'œuvre originale dans le cas d'un travail dérivé ? Si non, pourrais-tu m'indiquer quelqu'un auprès de qui prendre conseil, sans faire une annonce générale sur le Bistro ? En effet, nous aurions besoin d'un avis expert pour une VIC (et je te promets que ce n'est pas une blague au sujet du sexe des anges ;-). En te remerciant par avance, --Myrabella (talk) 10:27, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
Heuuu... Ben je veux bien donner mon opinion, mais ça ne doit pas être considéré comme un avis d'expert ! Sinon parmi les admins, Martin H. et Túrelio, par exemple, doivent s'y connaître aussi. Quand à MichaelMaggs, c'est pour le coup un expert (juriste ou avocat britannique, spécialisé en propriété intellectuelle) mais il dit sur sa page perso ne pas souhaiter s'occuper de ce genre de questions en ce moment, donc je lui ficherais la paix. --Eusebius (talk) 11:31, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
Merci beaucoup. Ce serait bien d'avoir ton avis déjà (expérimenté, sinon expert). J'ajouterais, s'il en était besoin, que tes interventions sur les VIC sont toujours précieuses — et pas seulement pour les clôturer proprement ! --Myrabella (talk) 14:16, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
Je préfère répondre ici : désolé mais je ne sais pas trop comment ce cas devrait être géré. À mon avis, il n'y a pas de réponse claire et nette, on est dans les zones grises du copyright. J'imagine que l'une et l'autre thèses pourraient être défendues et argumentées en cas de litige... Désolé de ne pas être d'une bien grande aide ! --Eusebius (talk) 07:21, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
Merci de t'y être penché en tout cas. Martin H., que j'avais contacté sur ta recommandation, a suggéré un argument, repris pour cette revue. --Myrabella (talk) 22:00, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
All of the above are free leaflets just for fans at competitions. There are not unique pieces of art at one copy. There are thousands o0f them and after they are on the ground there are just common pieces of paper, trash ! Does any litter has copy rights ? I never heard of them, so I don't see what Your point is !
The same as used tickets, they are just litters, nothing more, there worthless. By the way I have paid for them so they are mine! I can do anything to them: eat them for example.
There are no copyrights notes on them ! No Even one !
They are derivative works of several photographs + graphics designs. The fact that you don't deem them worth such rights is irrelevant. Copyright exists as soon as the work is created, and by default any eligible work is "all rights reserved", no need of a copyright notice for that. These pictures are not free of rights and a formal permission is needed for Commons to host them. Regards, --Eusebius (talk) 20:15, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
Hello Eusebius, I commented on every picture of me and wrote an Email to you and wikimedia permission. Diamant Dance Shoes is owned by my family, and I am the media productioneer of the company. I have all copyrights of pictures, phrases and modeldescriptions. Please undo all nominations and deletions. Check your Email for further informations. Kind regards, Oliver Müller (Diamant Schuhfabrik Otto Müller KG)--Oliver1983 (talk) 17:18, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
Hi. I've seen all your messages (in general it's not necessary to duplicate long texts like that). I have explained the procedure for having your permission recorded in our system. Please tell me when the e-mail is sent, so that I can update info on the image pages, restore the one image I have deleted and close the deletion requests. If there's something unclear to you in the procedure, please just ask here on my talk page. Regards, --Eusebius (talk) 15:34, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
Hi Eusebius, I can affirm the receipt of the permissions in the de-permissions queue. The permissions are valid, I put the OTRS templates on the image description pages, and therefore the deletion nominations can be closed. Would you do so for me, please? Regards, Yellowcard (talk) 14:57, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
Sure, thanks (I think it's better to leave the deletion template on the image page when you add the OTRS ticket, otherwise DRs do not close properly). --Eusebius (talk) 16:11, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
I'm sorry but i don't understand why did delete this file? I made this few minutes ago my foto... Why I cant send a foto of this cards? Rzuwig (talk) 10:33, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
Because taking the photograph does not make you the sole copyright holder: the designers of the cards hold copyright over your picture because it is a derivative work of their design. See Commons:Derivative works for more info. --Eusebius (talk) 10:35, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
Palestine coins
Hi Eusebius. I've uploaded this pictures using a PD-Old, because, they're coins minted by an old government and they're first minting was in 1927 (more thatn 70 years). --Manu (talk) 10:52, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
If you created this file, 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. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues.
Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!
Hi,
I am busy improving the wiki for the Supa Strikas comic series. I am an employee of Strika entertainment, and have been granted permission to upload their images in order to improve the wiki offering. Would an email from an internal Strika address suffice? or would you require written consent from the company owners?
Hi. Such an e-mail is probably needed, but maybe not sufficient. Please use the template e-mail provided here and have it sent to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org. Please note that we need permission from all the copyright holders, and by default it is the author, not only the publisher. Regards, --Eusebius (talk) 09:05, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
Hi, You deleted the images that I posted to the Supa Strikas page. I am an online administrator working for the copyright owners, and put all of this information in a letter which I sent from an official Strika email address. What more do I need to do to get these images undeleted and returned to their position? Please bear in mind that I am a new wikipedia user, and so any mistakes I may have made and need to rectify were purely because of inexperience.
Hi. Actually I didn't delete anything (knowing that permission e-mails were on their way), someone else did. I will undelete the images. In the future, if you upload images that are covered by a permission e-mail that you have already sent, you can add {{OTRS pending}} in the "permission" field of the image page, it will prevent the images from being tagged or deleted. Note that the undeletion of the files and the reference that I put on the image pages only means that we have received the e-mail, not that the permission has been validated. This will be done later via e-mail (it can take some time, up to one month). Also, please do not send duplicate permission e-mails. It is normal that you receive no swift answer, the e-mails are simply queued for processing. --Eusebius (talk) 16:22, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
Speedy deleting
Even if they are blatant copyright violations, fair use or similar, and they have been tagged that way by mistake? --Dodo (talk) 23:48, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
Yes, even if you think so, please. That would avoid the eventual restoration overhead for the admin managing the permission that the users may send in reaction to the "no permission" tag, and that would prevent him from being accused of deleting those files in spite of the permission and the discussions going on. We agree on the fact that those files, at the beginning, could either be speedily deleted or (less severely) tagged as missing a permission, but tagging instead of deleting can be motivated by the intention of not biting a newbie too soon, or the evaluation that the uploader may be in position of sending a permission (in the present case, the "blatant copyright violations" might not be copyvios at all). Anyway, once the file is tagged, from the point of view of the uploader it is inconsistent and disturbing to receive a message saying "this file may be deleted after 7 days", and then see the file deleted at once (this kind of thing has made new users just leave Commons). From the point of view of the tagging user (admin), who has evaluated the situation and made a decision, it is just a slap in the face and sometimes it puts an end to a communication work that might have been undertaken. Thanks in advance for your understanding. --Eusebius (talk) 08:04, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
I was thinking of music album covers, movie posters, photos taken (according to the uploader herself) randomly from Google/Facebook/Youtube, TV captures of mainstream media (movies and such), etc. --Dodo (talk) 13:52, 31 October 2009 (UTC)PS. For example, this one?
I wouldn't be bothered by that kind of deletion. But it is also true that I sometimes tag pictures that could be deleted at once, for instance when the uploader has only uploaded one or two (or when I feel a bit guilty for having deleted too many pictures), because I feel that it's more pedagogic than a copyvio notice (on which I may be wrong depending on the user). Also, it often happened to me that uploaders of speedily deleted pictures were in position of sending some kind of permission, so I often tend to tag rather than delete (saves me the burden of restoration and OTRS check). Just raw feedback here, no actual point... Only "please refrain from speedying files that are already tagged with a 7 day notice" :-) --Eusebius (talk) 15:01, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
Policies rarely offer a clear and unique line of action, there's always room for interpretation. Neither of our behaviours violates any regulation, according to me. --Eusebius (talk) 09:38, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
Interessting discussion. Personally I like the "no xxx" templates because it tells the uploader what the problem is and it gives hem/her a chance to fix it. Maybe some picture will stay on commons a few days longer but hopefully the uploader will learn and stay. So I seldom nuke on sight. --MGA73 (talk) 10:56, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
LOL. Well, then I'll ask here about "patent washing": what do you think of using (blatantly) copyrighted images which made through a USPTO patent without the explicit disclaimer? I mean, like this one. Does the passing through the patent "blank" its copyright? --Dodo (talk) 16:35, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
More generally, I haven't much consideration for anything that goes through the US patent office. I won't touch this file. --Eusebius (talk) 17:11, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
Bonjour Eusebius,
J'essaye de transférer sur Commons le logo de ma société mais il y a visiblement un problème de permission : "This file is missing evidence of permission. It has an author and source, but there is no proof that the author of the image or its subject (in the case of artwork) agreed to license the file under the given license." Je ne sais pas vraiment quoi ajouter d'autre.
Ce logo est déjà présent dans fr.wikipedia, correspond à celui du site www.polyspot.com ,je souhaite pouvoir l'utiliser dans d'autres pays. Que dois-je faire de plus ?
Merci
Flytox (talk) 10:34, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
Bonjour. Les logos sont toujours un problème. Dans la Wikipédia française (comme sur certaines autres Wikipédias), il me semble qu'il y a une exception de type "fair use" qui autorise l'utilisation de logos non libres pour les besoins de l'encyclopédie. Les exceptions de ce type n'existent pas ici sur Commons, où toutes les images doivent être absolument libres de droits. En conséquence, si vous souhaitez que votre logo soit disponible sur Commons, il faut qu'un responsable de votre société envoie une autorisation formelle de publier le logo sous une licence libre, autorisant les usages commerciaux et les travaux dérivés. Les propriétaires de logos commerciaux apprécient rarement, et se rabattent en général sur les exceptions de "fair use" sur les Wikipédias locales. Si néanmoins vous souhaitez publier ce logo sous une licence libre, et que vous avez autorité pour parler au nom des détenteurs du droit d'auteur, le message-type pour l'e-mail de permission se trouve ici, et l'e-mail est à envoyer à permissions-commons-fr@wikimedia.org. Cordialement, --Eusebius (talk) 10:46, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
[edita] File:P1030104 - Punta Alta de Comalesbienes.JPG
No, it is not a joke. In fact it is the only image that I have loaded more than once. Every time I loaded it, it was not shown on commons or wiki pages; so it looks to me it was corrupted. I tried several times, with different resolutions, but same result. Now I know the cause and I have loaded the right resolution. In deep it was not a corruption or size issue. It is an issue with the personal "Internet content protection" application. I had never experienced it in the past! For some reason there is something de "protection" does not like with the image file, name or description. Images are shown correctly from other internet connections. Sorry for the inconveniences. Is there any way to delete the older versions and left the last one? --Jborrut (talk) 08:25, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
What do you mean? What do you want to delete and what do you want to keep? Can't it be solved by a renaming of the picture? By the way, all your uploads bear a non-significant number that should be left out of the title. Also note that Commons content cannot be systematically adapted to your individual configuration. --Eusebius (talk) 09:28, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
I saw that, I notified the uploader as well. You were notified automatically. You can just ignore the message, unless you have some copyright-related info about the picture. --Eusebius (talk) 20:25, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
Hi. Maybe you're Christophe Hendrickx, maybe you're Francisco Gasco, but clearly you can't be both, so at least one of your authorship claims is fraudulent. You will need to clarify the situation by sending proper e-mail authorizations to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org from the official contact e-mail address of the relevant website. Regards, --Eusebius (talk) 12:51, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
Je vais vous parler en français puisque vous semblez partager la même langue maternelle que moi. Je ne connais pas très bien le système de Wikimédia commons, donc vous allez devoir m'aider et m'expliquer exactement ce que je dois faire en français. L'entièreté des images mis à part celle avec la mention "Francisco Gasco" ont été créées par mes soins si bien que j'en suis l'unique auteur. Je m'autorise donc sans aucun problème à les publier sur Wikimédia et sur les sites de Wikipédia avec la licence que je leur ai donnée. Quant au dessin de Francisco, il m'a permis de l'utiliser sur Wikipédia. J'ai donc reçu explicitement son autorisation. Par conséquent, dites moi ce que je dois faire puisque je ne comprends pas en quoi l'ensemble des illustrations que j'utilise sont en désaccords avec la charte de copyright de Wikimédia. Bien cordialement, --Nekar (talk) 17:34, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
OK, alors c'est très simple (merci de votre réaction rapide). En ce qui concerne vos illustrations, il faut que vous envoyez (depuis l'adresse qui figure sur votre CV en ligne, pour que l'on puisse s'assurer de votre identité) une autorisation sous cette forme (partie "déclaration de consentement) à permissions-commons-fr@wikimedia.org, en précisant bien la licence utilisée, et en décrivant par exemple les fichiers par "toutes les images réalisées par Christophe Hendrickx et importées par l'utilisateur 'Nekar'", ou bien par exemple "toutes les images réalisées par Christophe Hendrickx et provenant du site X" (si vous souhaitez étendre la permission à toutes les illustrations du site pour permettre à d'autres utilisateurs de les importer sur Commons), ou bien encore en listant les fichiers que vous avez déjà importés. Ensuite, apposez le tag {{OTRS pending}} dans le champ "permission" de toutes les images concernées par l'e-mail, pour signaler que l'e-mail de permission a été envoyé et éviter que les images soient supprimées.
De son côté, Francisco Gasco devrait envoyer exactement le même genre d'e-mail (le message que je vous ai pointé est disponible dans de nombreuses langues) à permissions-commons@wikimedia.org, en identifiant bien le fichier et la licence (ou en étendant la permission à l'intégralité de son compte deviantart, s'il est de nature généreuse). De la même manière, {{OTRS pending}} sur la page de l'image.
N'hésitez pas à me redemander si quelque chose n'est pas clair. La procédure peut avoir l'air un peu compliquée, elle vise simplement à s'assurer que nous n'acceptons pas de publications sous licence libre de la part de personnes qui n'en auraient pas le droit ni le pouvoir.
Note : Je ne pense pas que vous soyez le créateur de File:Afriqueglobemapsmall.jpg. Au mieux vous avez pris la photo, mais même si c'est le cas il est absolument nécessaire d'identifier le support, notamment pour s'assurer qu'il est dans le domaine public. Et si vous n'avez pas pris la photo, merci de préciser d'où elle vient !
Image nominée pour un domaine sur lequel il existe déjà une VI
Bonjour Eusebius, Puis-je te poser une question "VIC" ? Une image est actuellement nominée pour un domaine sur lequel il existe déjà une VI. Je m'en suis aperçue par hasard en parcourant les galeries des VI (en fait, je cherchais si des intérieurs de stade avaient déjà été promus, et j'ai reconnu le bâtiment en passant !) D'où ma question : je pensais qu'il y avait un contrôle automatique lors de la création de la page de nomination, sur la présence ou pas d'une VI sur le domaine choisi. Ce n'est donc pas le cas, et il faut vérifier que le domaine est libre pour chaque nomination, "au regard et à la main" ? Merci par avance pour ta réponse, --Myrabella (talk) 22:47, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
Il n'y a effectivement aucune vérification automatique. Je pense que ce ne serait pas super facile d'en faire une qui soit intelligente, mais je peux toujours mettre ça sur la todolist du bot ! Sinon pour le candidat concerné (au fait c'est moi qui avais nominé le VI actuel sur ce scope à l'époque, content qu'on ait mieux maintenant), ya juste à transformer en MVR, mais tu ne m'avais pas attendu pour ça j'imagine :-) --Eusebius (talk) 23:00, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
C'est ce que j'avais suggéré au nominateur :-). "A l'époque", tu fréquentais plus souvent les pages VI, n'est-ce pas ? (oui, c'est un regret ;-) --Myrabella (talk) 23:42, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
Super, merci (bien que cette tâche soit sans doute tout en bas de ta TODO-list ;-). En passant, peut-être aurais-tu aussi un avis sur la MVR elle-même (le nominateur y a ajouté une troisième image) ? --Myrabella (talk) 12:03, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
Pas le temps de regarder en détail, désolé, je suis en déplacement. Je me souviens juste que la VI en place était assez pourrie. --Eusebius (talk) 15:47, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
Logotipos de UGT - Federación de Transportes Comunicaciones y Mar
Hola, gracias por el envío de una autorización. Será evaluada por un voluntario de OTRS, que confirmará (o solicitará información adicional) por correo electrónico. Tenga en cuenta que esto puede tomar tiempo! Saludos cordiales, --Eusebius (talk) 06:18, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
Hola he visto el ticket 2009110810035698 pero nadie se ha puesto en contacto conmigo y yo no puedo acceder.
Hola. No hay ningún problema en particular, sólo se necesita tiempo antes de que un voluntario trata con el caso. Usted recibirá actualizaciones por correo electrónico. --Eusebius (talk) 09:02, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
À vrai dire, l'existence de ce modèle m'était sortie de la tête... Mais je me souviens maintenant avoir très compliqué cette usine à gaz autour d'OTRS : npd me semble plus pratique (si le client sur OTRS ne répond pas, l'image sera supprimée) tout en laissant quand même un minimum de temps (je vois rarement une image avec npd supprimée en moins de sept jours, la moyenne est plutôt autour d'une vingtaine de jours il me semble).--Bapti✉20:25, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
OK. Juste pour info, OTRS received a l'avantage de faire un lien vers le ticket. De plus, il a été modifié et accolé à un bot pour qu'au bout de 30 jours, la personne (volontaire OTRS) qui l'a placé reçoive une notification. Ensuite, le template est transformé par un bot et le fichier est placé dans une catégorie de fichiers à supprimer (même chose avec OTRS pending, mais c'est l'uploader qui reçoit la notification). De plus, j'ai l'impression que ces temps-ci les suppressions à t+7 jours sont beaucoup plus rapides qu'elles ne l'ont été. --Eusebius (talk) 20:29, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
Une statue de François Protheau
Bonjour!
Tu as mis sur commons l'image suivante représentant une statue de François Protheau, provenant du château de Fontainebleau. Saurais-tu par hazard, dans quelle pièce du château cette statue ce trouve t-elle? Certaines sources me font penser au vestibule des appartements de Madame de Maintenon, mais d'autres documents sur l'ammeublement du château ne la mentionnent pas.--VladoubidoOo (talk) 20:40, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
Alors, question difficile, je fais ça de mémoire... :-) Il me semble que le geotag que j'ai mis est relativement précis, au moins par rapport à la photo satellite de Google Earth (correction : ya juste un petit décalage de deux mètres vers l'ouest, la photo a dû être réajustée). C'est juste à la sortie du musée, c'est une pièce qui donne sur la cour d'honneur. Quand on regarde la statue, le portail principal est à gauche (la lumière qu'on voit sur la gauche de la photo vient d'une fenêtre de la façade, l'appareil regarde vers le nord). De ce que je me souviens, la statue a été placée là, mais c'est peut-être récent, ce n'est sans doute pas sa destination initiale. Je ne saurais pas identifier la pièce sans un plan, mais c'est juste à côté de la boutique et des toilettes, pour être pragmatique...
Thanks. I was currently thinking about rephrasing one of my sentences: block is probably not necessary, it is just the expression of my total inability to deal with your uploads. Yet it is possible that I request significant help from other admins sometimes. You'll be notified anyway. --Eusebius (talk) 21:25, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
Hi, you tagged those images as missing permission, as I understand becouse of watermarks. But the game FlightGear itself is under the GNU General Public License[20], same as any screenshots of it, and I dont think any further permissions is needed. --Justass (talk) 22:14, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
Hi. I had noticed the issue already. I'm not 100% sure though. The fact that the program is freely licenced allows us to make freely licenced screenshots, but I'm definitely not sure a GPL-licenced program imposes that its productions are licenced under GPL. It is true for the modifications of the program, and for products in which the GPL program is included, but not for the output of the program, otherwise any content produced under Gimp would be GPL, and we know it's not the case.
It is only an intuitive reasoning here, probably flawed. It is late and I'm tired, I'll study that more seriously later (and probably transform the tags into regular DRs, at least). --Eusebius (talk) 22:48, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
Without asking the creator you actually can't say if it is a screenshot or not. Someone who is able to create a game with this graphic is also able to create one idividual image that looks similar - but is not automatically licensed GPL because it not is and never was part of the software. The website not says that all content on the website is licensed under GPL - or I cant find the link. So the uploader must provide a link saying that the images on the website are GPL or he must provide the information from the author that this surely is a screenshot. --Martin H. (talk) 22:57, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
I am more and more convinced about what I have said previously. I'll nominate the files for deletion in order to have a serious discussion about it. --Eusebius (talk) 13:47, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
I acknowledge that I grant anyone the right to use the work in a commercial product, and to modify it according to their needs, as long as they abide by the terms of the license and any other applicable laws.
I am aware that I always retain copyright of my work, and retain the right to be attributed in accordance with the license chosen. Modifications others make to the work will not be attributed to me.
I am aware that the free license only concerns copyright, and I reserve the option to take action against anyone who uses this work in a libelous way, or in violation of personality rights, trademark restrictions, etc.
I acknowledge that I cannot withdraw this agreement, and that the work may or may not be kept permanently on a Wikimedia project.
Commons:Categories#Over-categorization. You should also be interested about all the discussion tracks on the Commons mailing lists about replacing categories with tags to allow what you want/need here. But there's currently no implementation and for now MediaWiki sticks with categories. --Eusebius (talk) 10:37, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
Hi, Eusebius, I just saw this lovely picture on your user talk page (Eusebius suddenly realized...); it's marvellous! À bientôt! Schnobby (talk) 12:10, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
Good morning, Eusebius. I know that it is not your work, but you added the witty text, I suppose. Yesterday I had a look at your pictures and I can see that we have much in common (stained glass windows, for example). As my husband took all the pictures of stained glass in his company (for 45 years) and also on holidays in France, he has thousands of photos. Some of them we added to articles about stained glass painting. - I have only one question for today: Is it possible to create a second account for me on the same computer? Most of our files are created by my husband. He also has a computer, but no internet. And when I have my own account - is it necessary to change the user name in all files, that are my own work? There's no hurry to answer, as I have no time today and tomorrow to do this. Regards, Schnobby (talk) 08:56, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
Yes, you can create an account just for you (what you shouldn't do is use two accounts simultaneously). It would be better to modify the user name in the uploaded images then, but there's not real rush for that I guess. --Eusebius (talk) 09:12, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
I just created an account with the user name:Schnorch. But on top of the monitor there is always "Schnobby" als usual. Is that OK? I only wrote into the user page: "Schnorch is a German painter" (for the beginning), the account is there, when I'm searching it, but the main account seems to be Schnobby. Did I make a mistake, because you said, I shouldn't use two accounts simultaneously? How can I manage it? Schnobby (talk) 13:29, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
I guess you need to log out (link in the top-right corner) and then log in again with your new account. --Eusebius (talk) 08:47, 21 November 2009
Hi Eusebius, that's right, I'm writing to you now with the new user name. Thank you for the help! I should have been able to manage this myself, but sometimes I think I'm too old to find my way about all the new technology. On the other side I'm proud of everything I can do, if necessary, with a little help. I'm very glad that you are here on my side. Now I want to try to upload only one picture. Please tell me afterwards if everything is OK this way. Have a nice day! Schnorch (talk) 10:00, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
It looks fine. Two remarks: 1) you can omit the mention about the licences, the licence tag themselves is enough information. 2) Instead of "own work", you can use the template {{Own}}, which is "autotranslated" (it means it is automatically displayed according to the language settings of the visitor). --Eusebius (talk) 13:01, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
Many thanks for the tip and the mentoring. The next pictures will be allright, I suppose. And whenever there is time enough, I'll change the other files. Is it OK, that I change the author from Schnobby to Schnorch, when I created the file myself being aware of the right log in? Commons and Wikipedia are great, but hard too for me, sometimes. Today I searched a lot of categories, so I'm rather fit for the next uploads. Have a nice weekend! Schnorch (talk) 15:41, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
(reset indent) Yes, I guess it is ok to change the reference to your username, since it makes more sense. Try to do it in a way that makes the present or future watchers of the files understand why you're doing it, for instance by stating in the modification summary that "Ingeborg Bernhard has now her own separate account". --Eusebius (talk) 16:05, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
Hi Eusebius, only some questions and remarks:
I was searching for new categories, but I did't find something like "Paintings of villages", "Linocut", "Silk-screen print", "Pastel drawings". Where can I find it?
The category tree is part of the wiki, it is built by the users. It means that if you need a category, you can create it (provided you categorize it properly). They should be in the plural form though, like "Linocuts" and "... prints". For creating the category, you can add the category to the file (as if it existed) follow the red link and edit the page. What should be in a category page? In order: a description sentence (optional), a good categorization (compulsory), inter-wiki links to the corresponding wikipedia articles in various languages (optional). You have more informations about categories at Commons:Categories. --Eusebius (talk) 19:07, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
What can I write into my user page under "graphic abilities"? I have a lot of them - drawing, painting, etching, writing poems and books... Does that mean I should mention what I can do for Commons?
Would it be useful if I add a Babel box in my new user page (but I'm not sure that I'm able to do that)?
In first approximation, your own user page is a free space, you decide what you put in it. It is not compulsory that you have one, but it is probably a good idea to say a word about you (not too much though, don't forget it is a very public place). The "user templates" provided to you are just suggestions. Some are really useful (like the Babel boxes), some are just for fun. You decide what is useful for you! About the Babel boxes, you can simply copy/paste the code of the Babel boxes of your former user page. --Eusebius (talk) 19:07, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
Please don't hesitate to improve my English, Spanish or French, if you see that I have translated something wrong. I'm not good in (at, about, for...) prepositions too.
Today I uploaded one picture and I think everything is ok now, even the date of the permission. Sometimes I can't add this painting-template. There is asked only "Description" in several languages, and when I add this template in English, it is said that there were mistakes. But I don't give up... Regards, Schnorch (talk) 14:04, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
This is how I do it too. I upload paintings with a rather empty information template, and then I replace it with the painting template and appropriate categorization (see [22] and [23]. Regards, --Eusebius (talk) 19:07, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
Good morning, Eusebius! It's so nice to have someone like you as a tutor. You give me a lot of useful information and I hope I'll be soon independent to do what I want to do. I had a look on this painting, and yes, I'm glad that you do it the same way. Anyway, there are some more questions.
I understand that this copy/paste must be something very easy and useful, but I don't really know how to manage it. Would you be so kind and explain it to me?
Copy, cut and paste are three common operations on a computer system. They usually correspond to the key strokes ctrl-C, ctrl-X and ctrl-V, respectively. They should also be accessible, for most computer softare, as menu items under the "Edit" menu. To copy something (like text), highlight it with your mouse and then hit Ctrl-C (on an Apple computer it is Cmd instead of Ctrl). The content is stored by the computer in an internal buffer named the "clipboard". When you place your cursor in another part of the text and hit Ctrl-V, the copied content is reproduced. More info about it in this article. In our case, you have to go to the page with the content you want to copy, click on the "edit" tab (within the wiki softare, not the "edit" menu on your computer) to show the source code, copy what you want in there. Then go to the target page, edit it, place your cursor where you want to reproduce the text and hit Ctrl-V. --Eusebius (talk) 10:05, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
I made a mistake when uploading the Heliconia picture. In the file name is written "Singepore" instead of "Singapore". This is an opportunity to learn something new. Shall I rename it by uploading the file again and mark the old one with bad name|correct name (but where, correct name cursive, will there be two pictures?).
No need to reupload, admins (and admins only) have the ability to rename files, so I'll do it for you. If you want to rename a file without asking an admin directly, you can use this dedicated template: {{Rename}} (look at the documentation over there). The "bad name" template was created at a time when there was not such possibility. It still works, but it's not the best way. --Eusebius (talk) 10:05, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
When I write Spanish with WORD, I can type this "n" with a ~ (like in Espana). How can I do this here?
Maybe there is a way to do it directly with your keyboard, but since I don't know German layouts and I don't know your operating system, I can't really help you. Fortunately, there is a simple wiki-based way of doing this. Below each edit window, there is a collection of buttons with symbols and markup codes. Clicking them will insert the symbols in the text you're typing. The first control there is a "dropdown list", set on "standard" by default. In this list, you can choose "Latin" to get a wide range of latin characters with diacritics or, more specifically, choose "Spanish" (or any language that you want to write in) to display only the special characters of this language. This kind of tool is present on every MediaWiki project (with different sets of input stuff). --Eusebius (talk) 10:05, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
When I change the author's name from Schnobby to Schnorch, will the picture be in Schnorch's gallery? (I want to try today)
No, it will stay in the uploader's gallery, because the tool doesn't look at the "author" field, it looks at who uploaded the file. But you can still display them on your user page, for instance. --Eusebius (talk) 10:05, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
In order to show that my pictures are also of "educational interest", I want to try to include some in Wikipedia articles, if there is place enough. Many articles are over-illustrated though.
Be careful. It can be frowned upon, on the Wikipediae, to push one's own work on the encyclopaedia. They certainly don't like it when somebody creates her own Wikipedia article (because there is a risk of non-objectivity). Include in the wikipedia only when it is really relevant. What I often do is "propose" an illustration in the talk page of an article, when I'm not sure whether my own picture is the best illustration of the subject. I'm not a specialist of the Wikipediae though, I mostly work here on Commons. --Eusebius (talk) 10:05, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
It worked! I now have the Babel box on my user page. Thank you! Now I'll try to write "Espana" like you recommended me. Much work, but very interesting. Regards, Schnorch (talk) 10:50, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
Galeria_chwaly.JPG
It would be very much appreciated if you would inform me about doubts of foto-copyrights before erasing - specially as it is used by 5 interwikis. As co-operation like this doesn't create too much fun. --Wistula (talk) 10:07, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
Hi Eusebius - The problem here was that the image replaced was misidentified, being Papaver orientale, not Papaver somniferum as the file name indicated. It was being used to illustrate a lot of Papaver somniferum articles on numerous different wikis, and it is not good to illustrate an article about one species with a photo of a different species. If I revert the bot replacement, it will put the misidentifed image back into all of those articles. I fear I would very much doubt that users on those various wikis would ever get the misidentifed image removed if it wasn't done by the bot. Ideas? - MPF (talk) 11:25, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
Yes, ideas I have :-( I should identify myself what the bot did within the scope of the Commons projects and clean it myself... Please just keep in mind that universally replacing a picture by another is probably not something that should be done, because you don't know how the picture is currently used (maybe it's not simply to illustrate a scope, maybe it is about a technical aspect of the picture, etc) and that replacing/deleting promoted images (VI/QI/FP) tends to break stuff in the relevant projects. Thanks for your concern. --Eusebius (talk) 11:47, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
Sorry! So shall I enter this in CommonsDelinker?: {{universal replace|Papaver somniferum flowers.jpg|Papaver somniferum 01.JPG|reason=undo previous mistaken exchange}}? - MPF (talk) 12:44, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
It worked also with this ñ - wonderful. You show me new worlds. Please forgive me if I have another question. The file: Palm in Egypt, shows evidently two palms. And the file:Paar 01 (=couple) should have the name "Nude couple" or something else. Thank you for "Singapore", I'd be very grateful if you could alter these files too. Next time I'll be more careful. I saw that you added Categories to the Category:Ingeborg Bernhard. There are so many things to bear in mind, it's incredible. I'm admiring you much being an admin. I couldn't do that, I'd rather paint another picture. So long for today! Schnorch (talk) 14:15, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
Are you requesting a renaming? Please be precise, or use the Rename template! About the ability to remember how things work, let's say I have spent way too much time here on Commons. But it is in constant evolution and I certainly don't have a full view of how things are managed. --Eusebius (talk) 22:25, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
Hi Eusebius, yes, I'm requesting a renaming for two pictures. I just looked at the Rename template and found it a little too complicated for me at the moment. File:Palm in Egypt.jpg should be File:Palms in Egypt.jpg or, if this is not possible, "Two palms in Egypt" (you know, sometimes a name is already given). And File:Paar 01.jpg should be given the file name File:Geoffrey and Patricia.jpg (without 01). I hope this is precise enough. Thank you for your help. It's a pity that I can't do anything for you as a countermove. --Schnorch (talk) 08:56, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
Thanks again. Now I ask you to have a look at the new file:Merkendorf. I hope that I now did it well - permission without date, title and technique in four languages and so on. Is "lavis" the right french translation? I mean a drawing with a drawing pen. If everything is ok, I'll correct all files. Shall I remove these permission dates, too? If so, I have enough to do for the next time and I hope that everything will be allright at last. Regards, --Schnorch (talk) 14:32, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
Hi. About File:Merkendorf.jpg: it looked ok, except that you keep using the "author" field inside the "painting" template, although it is not taken into account. In the painting template, you should use only "artist".
About "lavis": I'm not sure. I'm definitely not a specialist, but apparently "lavis" involves "washing" the line or diluting the ink to obtain several intensities. It seems that plain ink drawing is not called "lavis". What you can do is use the following template in the "technique" field: {{technique|ink|paper}}, which results in the following (autotranslated): ink on paper
medium QS:P186,Q127418;P186,Q11472,P518,Q861259
. In French, it gives simply "encre sur papier".
About the dates: don't change anything. The key idea is that you don't need to add the date, it will be added automatically. I told you this because I saw that at least once, you made a typo and then the date would not be processed properly. --Eusebius (talk) 15:09, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
Hi, Eusebius. I changed "lavis" into "encre de Chine". And about the dates: I changed nothing. Today I was very busy. I corrected all these files, and I hope that I did it well. I do this "painting" template with closed eyes already. But please don't hesitate to tell me if there is a mistake. I don't think that I'll upload much more pictures, only a few ones perhaps. Y para practicar, un cordial saludo! --Schnorch (talk) 14:59, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
Everything looked ok, apart from a bit of overcategorization lasting from your first uploads. I just want to remind you that using the painting template is not compulsory! --Eusebius (talk) 15:10, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
That's fine, thanks. I think that I'll have a little break and do other things. I liked it to use the painting template, so don't worry. I think that I'll work a little in Wikipedia the next time and do ceramics. I learned a lot from you, thank you so much. Whenever I'll upload new photos or pictures and have problems, I'd be glad to ask you. For the moment, have a good time and good bye! --Schnorch (talk) 15:44, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
Bonjour Eusebius,
Je ne sais pas si je dois écrire sur la page de discussion de Dschwen, celle de la VIC page ou celle de EuseBot aussi je le fais sur ta page (avec l'avantage de pouvoir écrire en français !). J'aurais une suggestion de tâche supplémentaire à la (longue) TODO-list, pour faciliter la clôture des VI sets. La demande serait : pour les VI sets, avoir une fonctionnalité qui permette de taguer d'un coup toutes les images composant le set (étape 10 de la clôture). En effet, c'est la partie la plus pénible du traitement manuel AMA quand il y a de nombreuses images dans le set, avec le risque d'en oublier... Merci de l'écoute, et excuse le squat si ce n'est pas le bon endoit :-) --Myrabella (talk) 11:06, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
Actuellement, le bot ne fait rien du tout pour les sets, et il y a déjà une tâche prévue : "faire quelque chose" :-) L'idéal étant que le bot fasse tout, je considère que c'était déjà dans ma TODO list. Merci d'avoir pris le temps de clore quelques sets ! --Eusebius (talk) 11:42, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
Ce serait parfait (si à cet horizon — que j'espère pas si lointain — il reste des images à traiter, le principal problème actuel sur le projet VI étant le manque de "reviewers" réguliers, AMA...). En attendant, un p'tit passage d'EuseBot serait utile sur les VIC et MVR closes. Merci par avance ! --Myrabella (talk) 07:38, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
Je crois que je l'ai fait sans attendre ton message (j'essaie de faire un passage par jour en attendant la migration du code sur le nouveau serveur). --Eusebius (talk) 13:33, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
Howdy - are you running a bot to flag unsourced images and leave automated warnings? I'm wondering about your flagging of File:PAX6 Phenotypes Washington etal PLoSBiol e1000247.png. I'll grant you that the source information wasn't up to full, proper academic standards at the instant I uploaded the image, but the journal (PLoS Biology), the date (November 2009), and the author (Washington et al.) were certainly specified — with which it would be trivially easy for someone to verify the source and license of the image in question (the PLoS journals all being open, CC-by-2.5 licensed publications). Moreover, I was busy sprucing up the citation info when you tagged; there was a full citation within seven minutes of my upload.
I left the info a bit thin when I did the initial upload because I haven't added anything to Commons for a while, and I wasn't quite sure how the Upload macro would format the data that I keyed in, and which fields would end up where. Rather than waste my time futzing around in those tiny little boxes before I uploaded, I provided sparse but sufficient information with the intention of fleshing things out after the upload.
That's a long text for a little issue (which is close now, everything's fine with the image page - just please leave the removal of the tag to an admin). About the methodology: admins are commonly monotoring new uploads and tags can come pretty fast (sometimes between the initial upload and a planned correction in the description like here, which is not a problem since the information is coming anyway). They're not a death sentence for the file, they mean that some information is missing and must be corrected. In this case the vital information was actually here, but there was no clear way to check that the file was actually primarily released under a CC licence. It just looked like the tons of uploads we get that the uploaders relicence as they wish in spite of their total absence of rights over the content. This is why your file got unduly tagged, but you really shouldn't take it personally. Regards, --Eusebius (talk) 22:01, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
Well, partly the long text is to encourage you to use more care before you start templating away. It's bitey for newbies, and just annoying for experienced editors. It's really trivial to verify that PLoS Biology is an open-access journal; it's right at the top of the first Google hit on their name ([24]), and the cc-by-2.5 is at the bottom of their homepage. TenOfAllTrades (talk) 22:35, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
OK, then it's trivial to add a link when you upload. This is to encourage you to use more care when filling the "source" field and to justify the licence tag you use. --Eusebius (talk) 22:38, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
It would probably be a good idea for you to review the template that you placed on my talk page. The template text opens with: "A file that you have uploaded...is missing information about where it comes from or who created it, which is needed to verify its copyright status".
When I uploaded the image, the source was provided, the correct license was indicated. Given the journal name, the date, and the author, it's trivial for you to confirm that my claims about the license and source are correct. It's not my fault that the {PLoS} template isn't in the default dropdown, and that it took me a couple of minutes to add the more-specific licensing template to the file. A click-through URL is a convenience, but not a necessity, for verifying the license.
If you had left a brief, polite, note along the lines of "I saw that you uploaded File:PAX6_Phenotypes_Washington_etal_PLoSBiol_e1000247.png. Can you provide a link to the original source and license? It makes it easier for Commons admins who check uploads. Thanks" then we wouldn't be here. Instead, you did no checking on your own, and slapped a big red template on my user page, a template that states incorrectly that I'm uploading images without source information. As a scientist, that sort of suggestion is extremely offensive to me (using other people's work without credit is plagiarism, a very serious type of academic misconduct). Perhaps there is a more-specific template which you could use, or perhaps you could consider leaving more specific and polite messages in the future? TenOfAllTrades (talk) 22:54, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
God, you have some time to spend. Yes, it was the wrong template, I should have tagged with "missing permission" because the image page, at the time, gave not enough justification of the licence template that you applied. Providing that kind info is the responsibility of the uploader. Take it as an offense if you really must. I don't think you have a very precise idea of the proportion of problematic files that land on Commons, but I won't spend more time on a non-problematic one. Take care, thank you for your contribution. --Eusebius (talk) 23:05, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
Do you think that I want to be spending this time? I'm concerned that your careless use of templates is going to discourage other contributors, ones who are less experienced than I am. I'm sorry that it took so long for you to understand the problem, and I'd be glad not to spend more time on it either. I certainly won't bring it up again if you're more careful in the future. TenOfAllTrades (talk) 23:10, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
When you have dealt as much as I have with copyright violations, borderline cases, careless users and copyfraud, when you have discussed as much as I have about the structure and usage of Commons's problem tags and unknown status deletion workflow, you will come and pedantically teach me about it, and I'll listen to you. For now, I suggest you go complain about me somewhere else. --Eusebius (talk) 23:17, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
I understand that you believe you're too busy to look closely at every case, or to be careful with the templates that you use. Might I suggest, however, that you could save yourself some effort by following the upload log a few minutes in? If you were to wait, say, fifteen minutes before you start to template, you'd avoid effort for everyone — including yourself. On enwiki, we strongly discourage our new-article patrollers from slapping tags on good-faith new articles for at least a little while after they're started; at least sometimes, the original authors (and sometimes another editor) will make improvements after their first edit. Here, if you'd waited fifteen minutes (or even ten!) you would have seen all the information that you wanted, you wouldn't have had to tag anything, you wouldn't have had to leave a message on my talk page, and you wouldn't have left a tag on the image that another admin would have to come back to remove later, when it was obvious that the source information was present. I don't expect you'll want to take my suggestion right now, but I hope that you'll look back on it and think about it in a week or two. That's the last thing I'm going to say about the matter here; I promise. You can have the last word if you want. TenOfAllTrades (talk) 01:45, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
Then I'll reply more calmly, after a good night (I'm sorry I was rude, it is a sign that I was both tired and upset): checking the new uploads at t+15 minutes is certainly something that I could do and I thank you for the suggestion. Yet, for your information and on the basis of my experience, I would mostly lose my time, for the conjunction or two reasons: in 15 minutes, my fellow reviewers would have filtrated some content already and I would spend most of my time reviewing pictures already tagged. Secondly, people adding the relevant info right after their upload represent a negligible fraction. It mostly regards complex and specialized information template such as {{Painting}}, which is difficult to apply at upload time. About 90% of what we tagged must be deleted anyway, even after the most benevolent users have intereacted with us and done what they could to clean the image info.
After some rest, I am also able to recollect why exactly I tagged your picture, that it is still problematic and that I might eventually nominate it for deletion (regardless of your good will and good faith). This image is a composite image, and it is doubtful that the authors of the article are also the authors of all their illustrations. As a scientist, you must be aware that people often rely on photographic or graphical material proposed by fellow researchers, which is very ok (like in the case of a short excerpt of a book). However, this does not grant them the right to relicense what they have quoted, and there the Creative Commons licensing on PLoS is, in absence of a formal release from all the sources, an unintentional copyfraud. As a scientist, you do know that reviewers and scientific editors do not really care about the copyright status of illustrations as long as everything is attributed, and that the publishers care about almost nothing since they can rely on the (contractual) copyright releases from the article authors (although I must confess that I have never interacted with a publisher or an editor wanting to release the articles under a free license). In our case, I don't have free access to all online journals and proceedings of a discipline that is not mine, but I can at least spot that the PAX6+/- human eye is provided by Dr K. Ramaesh, which is not an author of the article, which is not credited in its bibliography and from which I don't see any kind of permission to release its work under a free licence allowing derivative works and commercial use. One should be able to confirm that most of the other pictures are attributed to other authors, on the basis on the (imperfect) references of the illustration.
In conclusion, because of an incomplete sourcing and in spite of your good will and faith, you could not see uploading this picture was (most probably) a violation of copyright: the picture is still not properly attributed and it still lacks formal permissions to release under a CC license. --Eusebius (talk) 09:17, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
Hi, you deleted this photo due to copyvio. I retrieved it from en-wiki, so I wasn't aware of this. Can you also remove it from there? ChickenFalls (talk) 20:27, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
Hi. I'm sorry, I'm not an admin on en.WP and I'm not active at all over there, but I'll find someone more aware to take care of that. May I remind you to import only images with clear source/licensing/permission status? Many files on the Wikipedias are not so Commons-proof. Regards, --Eusebius (talk) 20:30, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
I will try, but it is not always easy to know whether the photo is taken by the uploader or simply downloaded from some other place. Thank you for your help. ChickenFalls (talk) 20:35, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
VIC : des mercis... et une question
Bonjour Eusebius,
Merciiiiiii pour tes interventions récentes sur les VICs, encore plus efficaces que EuseBot ;-) ! C'est précieux et instructif d'avoir un évaluateur expérimenté qui s'exprime. Bon, j'en profite pour te signaler que les MVR apparaissent deux fois dans la page VIC en français, zarbi, je ne vois pas d'où ça vient (les § 7, 7.1 et 8 = 9, 9.1 et 10). Merci par avance de ton œil, là aussi. --Myrabella (talk) 08:35, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
Ah oui, c'était déjà arrivé une fois depuis que la décision a été prise d'inclure une page dans l'autre... J'étais pas trop pour quand j'ai vu ça, mais il y avait déjà eu une demande de commentaire sur la page de discussion et je n'avais pas répondu à l'époque, donc j'ai fermé ma gueule. Je vais regarder. --Eusebius (talk) 08:39, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
Hi Eusebius, I just put a painting and a quotation on my user page (my tutor told me how to do this). How do you like it? - I told my tutor in Wikipedia about you and he read our discussions. He is very fond of the possibility to have someone like a mentor in Commons too. Indeed, it is sometimes very difficult for a beginner to manage this all. You told me, that you probably would propose this; please do it! I'm still very grateful and want to thank you once more for everything. Regards, --Schnorch (talk) 17:06, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
Hi there. I like the quote a lot, I knew it already, I'm a big fan of Oscar Wilde. Your user page looks nice (when I want to do those fancy displays, I never know how to do it), but as a former tutor, I feel compelled to make a remark! As a professional of the graphic arts, you should know that the rules of heraldry, which have lead to the rules of user interfaces, forbid us to display a colour over a colour or a metal over a metal, it is always metal over colour or colour over metal. In heraldics, metals are Or (gold) and Argent (silver), or white and yellow, and colours are azure, gules, purpure, sable and vert (blue, red, purple, black and green). On your user page, you display a black text over a brown background, which is not easy to read. Over brown you should use a much lighter colour, like yellow or white.
Another remark: when using someone's talk page, you should begin a new section (with a new title, there should be a tab link above the page zone) when discussing a new topic. It allows busy pages such as mine to be properly archived (section par section) by bots.
Back to our conversation, I'm still very interested in the idea of tutorship on Commons (and I know I'm not the only one), but I really don't have time to propose a semi-official formalization for the concept and I only answer to requests for guidance when they occur. Besides, the specificities of Commons would make tutorship much different than on a Wikipedia: many contributors here are not interested in being active on the long term, they just need to upload something for a Wikipedia, which they consider their home project. The active core of Commons community is very limited, the rules (copyright-related ones, mainly) are severe and difficult to understand and admins are overwhelmed, and this conjunction leads to frequent criticisms of the project and its community.
Hi, thank you for your reply. I didn't know this about metals or colours; I'll change it of course. Point 2: I understood the remark about new topics, thanks. Point 3: I understand the difficulty about tutors in Commons too. I know from my tutorship in Wikipedia that it is immense work to the mentor; my tutorship lasted one year, because I was a beginner and I had so many questions to ask. Also I wrote four (almost) new long articles, this was much work too for both of us. It's really not easy to be a tutor. But we are friends now. We often write letters, today he wanted to know what my December-quotation (on my user page in Wikipedia) by Oscar Wilde means: "In this world there are only two tragedies. One is not getting what one wants, and the other is getting it. The last is much the worst." In my English course we recently spoke a lot about Oscar Wilde and I had to do a report about his work. Now I know his work very well and liked it before, when I was a young girl. Another quotation for you especially: "It is awfully hard work doing nothing. However, I don't mind hard work." Have a nice day! --Schnorch (talk) 10:25, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
If you created this file, 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. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues.
Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!
Bonjour, deux parties à ma réponse. Premièrement, si vous souhaitez demander la suppression d'une image pour une raison donnée, vous devriez avoir un lien en partie gauche intitulé "proposer à la suppression", ou quelque chose du genre.
Deuxièmement, je vais faire cette demande de suppression, mais il est probable qu'elle sera sans suite, Commons ayant pour politique d'ignorer la plupart des restrictions d'usage non liées au droit d'auteur (comme celles liées à la propriété physique d'une oeuvre). De plus, je ne suis pas juriste mais la seule propriété ne suffit plus en droit français pour interdire la publication, il faut "préciser en quoi la publication [...] [porte] un trouble certain au droit d'usage ou de jouissance du propriétaire" (chambre civile de la Cour de Cassation, 20 mai 2001), or je ne vois mal en quoi cette publication constitue un "trouble anormal". Donc, en tant que boétien, je dirais qu'ils ont peu de chance de faire valoir leurs droits, mais je me trompe peut-être. Pour faire une requête de ce type à la fondation, je suggère aux propriétaire d'envoyer un e-mail à info-fr@wikimedia.org (confidentialité garantie), qui sera transmise à l'avocat de la fondation si c'est nécessaire. Cordialement, --Eusebius (talk) 06:48, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
If you created this file, 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. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues.
Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!
I have read it. In German there is a notice at the casebook, which i not found in the english version. In English it means: Paintings with frames are not allowed, but without frames they are allowed. At the German version there are "Gemälde/Fotos" free - this means paintings and pictures without frames? And there ist a sentence: Schneide mit einem Grafikprogramm den Rahmen weg, und es ist OK. - It means: cut the frame and it ist ok. What should i do? --Mef.ellingen (talk) 22:27, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
This particular regulation applies only to 2D documents (paintings, here) that are "PD by age" (that is, the creator has been dead for more than 70 years, in general). I guess the editor of the German version of the casebook took it as granted. In the case of your picture, it is not obvious that the locomotive photographs are old enough to be PD (we have to know who took them and when), and the text is copyrightable. f the photographs appear to be in the public domain, what can be done is crop the picture to show only them, and not the text, but we have to be sure, and it wouldn't be easy to get the information I guess. --Eusebius (talk) 22:52, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
The picture left was taken in 1913, i can see it at the picture - but it is not easy to find out the photograph. And the picture right is not signd. The train was abandoned at 1928 - but there is the same problem - where was the photograph? Should i cut only this photos? --Mef.ellingen (talk) 11:31, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
It would certainly be safer to crop the pictures and upload them as separate files (with all the relevant info you have about them, of course). If Iceland was in the UE, I would use {{Anonymous-EU}}, but here I'm not sure. We only have very few Icelandic licence templates. {{PD-old}} is probably the best thing to use (with Unknown in the author field), but the status of the images could still be attacked in a deletion request some day. --Eusebius (talk) 13:30, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
Hi, Eusebius, I'm afraid I just made a mistake when adding a new category (Hans Bernhard) to some pictures. Would you please be so kind and have a look at the gallery of "Schnobby"? - The photo "Mongolian Lama" had a remark with a star, that it probably could be priced as excellent. So I put it on the list. I hope I did it the right way, because it's the first time. Regards, --Schnorch (talk) 10:26, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
Hi. What kind of mistake do you think you have made? Could you be more specific? I wonder whether this category should be a standard category, or instead a "user category". Think about it. About the Lama picture: I'm not very familiar with the Featured Pictures project, but if there is a problem they will tell you about it. Everything looks ok for me, though. --Eusebius (talk) 10:58, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
Hi, Eusebius. I'm sorry that I didn't write down what was written there in big red letters, but it seems to be ok now. - Sorry too, I didn't know that about user categories. I thought, if I have a category, my husband could have one for himself. Should I change both categories to user categories by adding user category to all pictures? How should this look like? Template:User category:Hans Bernhard for instance? Please give me an example. --Schnobby (talk) 11:22, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
Oh, I'm not very good today. I just used the other user name Schnobby and you told me that I must not do this. I hope you got my message nevertheless about this user category. Excuse me, please! Schnorch (talk) 11:49, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
About user categories: they have two main features. They use {{User category}}, which makes them invisible in the image page, and they are not linked to the main category tree. For instance, Files by Eusebius has no real parents, it is only listed in hidden categories and User categories. In our case, the decision of using a normal category or a user category depends on how notable the creator/artist is. I'm in no way a notable person (according to Wikipedia-like criteria, for instance), and more specifically I'm not notable because I create photographs or diagrams, so it shouldn't be a standard category, it is simply a user category, mostly relevant for me and for other users on Commons. On the other hand, Paintings by Gustave Doré is a standard category about the work of a very notable artist (obvious case). It is not even a Commons user of course, but I couldn't find a clear cut example of a Commons user who would also be a well-known artist. I guess you understand the issue better. The evaluation of whether the creator of some content is significant enough to warrant a standard category is pretty subjective. I'm in no way entitled to give you an answer, I leave the decision to you. There are many categories, in the standard category tree, for photographs by people which are in my opinion borderline (see Photographs by author for examples). --Eusebius (talk) 13:42, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
Hi, Eusebius. Thank you for your reply which I found clear enough to think it over and make a decision. I'm not convinced that a category:Photographs by Hans Bernhard will be the right way for our case, because his photos belong to much more expressive categories, where they can be found by Commons users easily by theme, for example "Nut" oder "Stained glass paintings". So I've decided to delete the new category. Besides, we have this nice gallery in "Schnobby", that already contains all his photos and paintings. Thank you for your help; it's always better to ask someone like you who has more overview. Regards, --Schnobby (talk) 09:01, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
I just deleted all categories:Hans Bernhard in the pictures, but not the category itself, I didn't know how. Perhaps this is your turn as admin. If so, please do it. Kind regards, --Schnobby (talk) 15:34, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
That's right, you have to be an admin to delete anything, I'll take care of this one. Empty categories get deleted quite regularly, but you can speed the process up by putting {{speedy|empty category}} in the category code. --Eusebius (talk) 15:36, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
Fosse n° 12 des mines de Lens
Bonjour, ajoutant un grand nombre d'images aujourd'hui sur les mines de Lens, les descriptions sont ajoutées au copié-collé. Par conséquent, je n' ai pas encore pris le nom de relever le nom des éditeurs de la source. je commencerais ce travail dans une heure environ et je le finirais demain. JÄNNICK Jérémy (talk) 14:22, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
Bonjour. Il y a peu de chance que vous trouviez le nom du photographe sur ce genre de cartes postales, mais une date approximative est essentielle. Si la photo a été publiée avant 1938 sans mention de l'auteur dans un des pays de l'Union, on peut utiliser {{Anonymous-EU}}. --Eusebius (talk) 14:25, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
Merci, je ne connaissais pas cette licence, j'étais plutôt habitué à utilisé PD-old. Quant aux dates, même si parfois elles ne sont pas notées, il est possible de les retrouver dans mon cas via l'architecture des bâtiments miniers, notamment le fait que ce soit avant ou après la Première Guerre Mondiale. JÄNNICK Jérémy (talk) 14:28, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
Hi. This is not a mistake. I am totally ready to believe that you are the artist. I didn't say that these pictures were copyright violations, what I did say is that we need a formal permission from the artist (you) to host them. Would you please send us an e-mail in this form to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org, with maybe a reference to "any work by Párvusz (or Norbert Kiss) uploaded by User:Eino81"? Also please tell me when it is done so that I can update the image pages. Regards, --Eusebius (talk) 10:22, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
You are welcome - just finished a foundation level photography course - maybe it was worth the money :) I'll happily help any of the nicer people on Commons ;). Let me know if you need anything, regards --Herbytalk thyme13:32, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
Bonjour Eusebius, EuseBot a envoyé plein d'images de valeur déjà nominées et classées sur la page de catégorisation VI : ça se voit ici. C'est à cause d'un réglage en cours ? Bien cordialement, --Myrabella (talk) 22:39, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
Merdouille, ya pas de réglage en cours... Est-ce que quelqu'un a modifié les noms des galeries, ou quelque chose dans le genre ? J'essaierai de jeter un coup d'oeil demain, mais je suis vraiment occupé en semaine. Les bots font un peu ce qu'ils veulent en ce moment, avec VICbot qui aime pas les libellules... --Eusebius (talk) 22:47, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
Ca s'est moins grave, parce que quand le bot est en bonne santé, il remet dans la liste tous les VIs promus mais qui n'apparaissent dans aucune gallerie. Il est vachement intelligent en fait, quand il nous fait pas une dépression nerveuse :-) --Eusebius (talk) 10:10, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
Bon, apparemment il y a quelque chose qui fonctionne différemment dans la recherche des références d'une image, mais pour l'instant je n'arrive même pas à savoir si ça vient de MediaWiki ou du framework du bot... Et je ne comprends pas ce qui a changé. J'ai débranché cette fonctionnalité pour l'instant. --Eusebius (talk) 17:23, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
Vu, merci. Est-ce qu'il pourrait y avoir un lien avec le fait que VICBot a été réinstallé sur un nouveau serveur récemment ? --Myrabella (talk) 08:19, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
Merci d'avoir consacré un peu de temps à ce problème et d'avoir trouvé moyen de le résoudre (même si le mystère demeure ;-) ! --Myrabella (talk) 20:16, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
Monnaie de Malte
OK tu as reverté mon info sur l'autorisation d'utilisation des monnaies maltaises. Pourtant, j'indique que le Copyright Act, seule loi maltaise traitant du copyright ne fait pas état de la reproduction des monnaies et je donne comme exemple la site officiel de la Bank of Malta qui autorise explicitement la reproduction des monnaies qui sont sur son site à la condition que celle-ci «ne soit pas déformées ou détournées» expressions typiquement maltaises utilisées dans les lois comme au sujet des armes et du drapeau maltais. Comment peut-on autrement justifier de quelque chose qui n'est pas expressément interdit sauf à tenir le raisonnement courant en terme de droit: tout ce qui n'est pas interdit est autorisé. Merci de ta réponse avant que je rétablisse l'info dans l'article. Cordialement -- • Hamelin [ de Guettelet ] • 13:55, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
Bonjour. Le fait que les pièces de monnaie et les billets ne soient pas mentionnés dans le Copyright Act signifie qu'ils ne sont couverts par aucune exception au droit d'auteur (enfin, au copyright), et donc qu'ils sont protégés, comme toute oeuvre de l'esprit dans les limites de créativité éventuellement fixées. C'est ce qui se passe en France : les pièces et billets ne sont couverts par aucune exception, ils sont protégés normalement par le droit d'auteur.
À propos de la déclaration sur le site de la Banque de Malte : je n'ai pas vérifié la déclaration originale mais comme tu l'as citée, elle serait jugée "insuffisante" pour Commons (sauf précision éventuelle de leur part) car elle n'autorise pas excplicitement les travaux dérivés et les utilisations commerciales. D'autre part, elle ne couvre que les images qui sont sur le site, et ne disent rien sur le statut des pièces et billets en eux-mêmes. Comme c'est la Banque de Malte qui détient le copyright, ils ont le droit de donner des autorisations pour certaines photos (dont ils détiennent aussi les droits) tout en interdisant les reproductions faites par des tiers.
L'idéal, ce serait d'obtenir un courrier ou un e-mail officiel de la Banque de Malte qui clarifie la situation, en nous disant 1) si oui ou non les pièces et billets (enfin, les faces nationales) sont protégés par copyright, et si oui, 2) si les images de leur site peuvent être utilisées avec une licence "compatible Commons" (avec un texte de ce type-là, ou simplement une note comme quoi c'est dans le domaine public, aux restrictions près sur la contrefaçon bien sûr). Sans une telle autorisation, juste avec les infos que tu as données, on ne peut pas considérer que ces images (ou n'importe quelles autres images de monnaie maltaise) sont utilisables. Cordialement, --Eusebius (talk) 14:13, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
Bonjour.
D'abord il me semble avoir vu quelque part, qu'un mail de la Bank of Malta de cette sorte existe, mais je ne sait pas le retrouver. Maintenant, si l'autorisation donnée sur son site couvre la reproduction des photos du site, elle couvre évidemment les monnaies qui y sont reproduites, reste le problème spécifique de la licence et de l'éventuelle utilisation commerciale de ces photos, je te le concède, mais cette restriction n'existe pas dans l'autorisation de reproduction du contenu du site de la Bank. Ce qui n'est pas sous copyrigth est dans le domaine public. Non ? Il faudrait donc que les monnaies soient sous copyright pour empêcher de quelques façons que ce soit, leur reproduction photographique ou dessinée puisque les deux existent sur le site.
Je pense qu'il faut inverser ton raisonnement, le Copyright Act, un très long document, qui, mais il faut que je le relise, ne pose pas de principe générale du style tout est sous copyright sauf ou tout est public sauf. Il reprend systématiquement tous ce qui est couvert par copyright (Malte a une législation anglo-saxonne), de quelles façon c'est couvert et explique les règles et droits de l'utilisation de chaque chose couverte, littérature, sculpture, chanson, parole, musique, film, architecture, etc. etc. donc le reste est du domaine public comme les monnaies ou les billets de banque. Si la législation maltaise avait voulu interdire ou limité la reproduction de ceux-ci (hormis fausse monnaie évidemment prévue dans d'autres lois) elle aurait spécifiquement prévu un article à ce sujet. A ma connaissance il n'y a que deux possibilités sous copyright (protection) ou domaine public (liberté). De plus je possède quelques documents officiels maltais ou brochures commerciales ou publicitaires pour préparer la population maltaise à l'adoption de l'euro sur lesquelles aucune des photos des pièces n'est copyrigtées comme le sont généralement toutes les autres photos. Pour l'anecdote c'est le peuple maltais qui est considéré comme auteur des monnaies car les faces maltaises sont le résultat de deux consultations nationales.
"si l'autorisation donnée sur son site couvre la reproduction des photos du site, elle couvre évidemment les monnaies qui y sont reproduites" : Non, non et non... Ca, c'est juste faux. Si les monnaies sont protégées par copyright, c'est la Banque de Malte qui le détient, et ils peuvent donc donner une autorisation limitée à certaines photos et pas à d'autres, sans que l'objet initial sorte du copyright.
Pour le reste, je vais essayer de chercher s'il existe un mail sur la plate-forme OTRS et je vais regarder le Copyright Act de plus près. --Eusebius (talk) 15:44, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
Sur l'e-mail : il n'a pas été enregistré via OTRS mais par un contributeur individuel (familier des interprétations abusives des déclarations des banques nationales, d'ailleurs...). Extrait : "The user is granted permission to make use of the Central Bank of Malta's web pages, save files, distribute and reproduce pages. However, the source is to be stated and the material not altered or distorted". C'est plus que clairement inacceptable pour Commons, puisque les travaux dérivés sont explicitement interdits. --Eusebius (talk) 15:50, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
Bon, le copyright act confirme ce que je disais :
3. (1) Subject to the provisions of this section the following works shall be eligible for copyright:
(a) artistic works;
"artistic work" shall include, irrespective of artistic quality, any of the following, or works similar thereto:
(a) paintings, drawings, etchings, lithographs, woodcuts, engravings and prints;
Ce qui couvre les pièces de monnaies et les billets, qui sont protégés par copyright. Au besoin, l'Act rappelle spécifiquement que les travaux publiés ou ordonnés par les instances du gouvernement sont protégés :
6. (1) Copyright shall be conferred by this section on every work which is eligible for copyright and which is made by or under the direction or control of the Government of Malta and also such governments of other States, international bodies or other intergovernmental organisations as may be prescribed by the Minister responsible for the Industrial Property Office.
(2) Copyright conferred by this section on databases or on a literary, musical or artistic work shall subsist until the end of the expiration of seventy years from the end of the year in which it was first published.
OK, je viens aussi de relire le Copyright Act et j'ai relevé les mêmes choses que toi. Reste la possibilité d'utiliser les documents présent sur le site de la Bank of Malta, "User is granted permission to make use of the Central Bank of Malta's web pages, save files, distribute and reproduce pages. The However, the source is to be stated and the material not altered or distorted" comment interpréter cela au regard du travail dérivé ? Tu ne peux pas interpréter altered or distorted comme une interdiction d'un travail dérivé et de plus charger un document n'est pas du travail dérivé non plus. Merci -- • Hamelin [ de Guettelet ] • 21:29, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
"the material not altered or distorted" interdit toute modification des photos. C'est plutôt clair, ce n'est pas du tout compatible avec une licence libre. --Eusebius (talk) 21:36, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
Ok, je comprend ton interprétation, en chargeant la photo même sans modification, j'autorise sa modification ultérieure, ce qui n'est pas autorisé par la Bank of Malta. J'ai plus rien à dire. C'est vraiment un truc tout simple ces histoires de licence . Merci de toutes tes explications, je suis un peu moins bête aujourd'hui qu'hier. Cordialement -- • Hamelin [ de Guettelet ] • 03:10, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
It wasn't very wise to stop the discussion that quickly. The history (heir etc.) of this picture should be correctly mentioned in the permission description. Also a us-gov-military license may be aplly. The picture may be right, but the discription is wrong.--Avron (talk) 09:55, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
Hi. I have speedily kept because there was no new element in the new deletion request, they had been discussed already. The personal history doesn't have to be displayed on the image page I think. About the Us-gov-military license, it might be right, but we don't really know. It is true that it would be safer if the uploader would agree to release under PD, so that the picture would be PD anyway. --Eusebius (talk) 12:39, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
I didn't know about the first discussion. If the permisstion situation isn't laid out, so questions will arise again and again. At least the description should reflect the first discussion. Like I said, at the moement the license is wrong.--Avron (talk) 17:57, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
Salut. Dans mon cas, ça a été assez simple : mon contrat d'allocataire de recherche ne contenait aucune clause relative au droit d'auteur etc., donc j'étais le seul détenteur des droits. La réponse, en général, est que si le contrat ne prévoit rien, l'auteur est seul maître. Mais bien entendu, je ne suis pas juriste :) guillom01:24, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
OK, mais il pourrait y avoir des restrictions (légales) supérieures au contrat. J'ai un vague souvenir d'un texte de loi qui parle des productions d'étudiants servant à valider l'attribution d'un diplôme national, mais peut-être que je me goure et que ça concernait juste les sujets d'examen (qui seraient dans le domaine public). La juriste avec qui j'ai parlé du statut du manuscrit me disait aussi que les textes de PI n'étaient pas clairs sur les productions des agents de l'état dans le cadre de leurs fonctions (ce qui est le cas de ta thèse si tu étais allocataire). Mais elle n'avait pas le souvenir que la PI sur une thèse ait jamais été contestée à son auteur. Je crois qu'encore une fois, le droit de la PI en France s'appuie sur la non-jurisprudence du cachage sous le tapis :-) --Eusebius (talk) 08:46, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
St Malo
Je soutiendrais volontier ta première photo du fort national mais elle est sursaturée surtout les rouges; peux-tu baisser un peu la saturation?
amicalement -- Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 16:46, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
Aaah mais ce n'est pas la mienne, sinon elle aurait été parfaite :-) Plus sérieusement, je ne pense pas avoir ni l'oeil ni la maîtrise des outils pour faire les réglages fins que tu demandes. Peut-être que tu es mieux placé pour ça, si justement tu cernes le problème ? Question subsidiaire, est-ce que c'est bien important pour une VI, alors que le niveau de qualité demandé est celui d'un téléphone portable ? --Eusebius (talk) 17:01, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
Well, when I close a DR, on the right of the file name, I have two links "keep" and "delete" (plus the four links "k", "keep", "d" and "delete"). If I use the "keep" link next to the filename, it automatically removes the DR template from the image page and adds a link to the DR page in the image talk page. If I use the "delete" link, it automatically deletes the image page with a deletion summary embedding a link to the DR page. Do you see those links? --Eusebius (talk) 08:38, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
Template
Hello Eusebius/Guillaume, thank you for your emails and the http with the template. Is there anything which I have to do different now when uploading my pictures? Till yesterday I added this OTRS pending to my drawings and this Dual licensed by its author under GFDL and so on to the photos of my husband. - As I want to upload a better photo of the "Mongolian Lama" with smoother colors, would you mind just deleting the old one? And by the way, we hope you are not getting too stressed in the run-up to Christmas and that you will find the time to relax. Season's greeting, have a good time and nice holidays! --Schnobby (talk) 11:06, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
Hi. What you should do now is: not use the OTRS pending template, not describe the licence, not use any licence template, but simply put {{Ingeborg Bernhard permission}} in the "permission" field. It displays everything that is needed.
About the picture that you want to update: if it is really only a better version of the same work, what you can do is upload it over the existing one by using the link "Upload a new version of this file" in the "File History" section in the image page. It is something that you shouldn't do for different pictures, though. Its intended use is only to upload better versions of the same file. Regards, --Eusebius (talk) 11:29, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
Thank you, what would I do without your help! One little problem although: The new Mongolian Lama is cut a little different, but it is the same photo. Does that matter? Cheers, --Schnobby (talk) 12:28, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
I just uploaded the File "Granada, 1970.1." But it wanted me to fill up the licence template too and you told me not to do that. Why must it be so difficult, Guillaume, can you tell me? A little tired, Schnobby (talk) 16:43, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
Oh yes, you're right, you have to choose a license at upload time. You can just remove it afterwards and do it in two steps, just like the painting template. Sorry about that! --Eusebius (talk) 17:34, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
Pending tickets
Sorry I didn't see your message earlier. I had previously spoken to the photographer before who had said that he would permit me to upload the photos, I then forwarded him the copy of the permissions agreement telling him to forward it into WikiCommons and then uploaded the pictures, assuming he would also send the agreement. I'll message him to make sure he's still okay with it and that he forwarded it. FreddiusMercurium (talk) 23:22, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
I can't find the ticket, but maybe it is because I don't have access to it. If you agree to tell me, by e-mail, the originating e-mail address, or the subject of the e-mail, or an excerpt of the text (or to forward the whole e-mail to me), I'll be able to make a more precise search. --Eusebius (talk) 08:53, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
Hi! Now what is the problem with that comics permission? I thought, that if you give a ORTS-permission to each of my pictures, I could use that also here. what could I do? --Eino81 (talk) 09:16, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
Yes, I know, but it is only related to the limited list of images that you have given in your permission e-mails. I think I remember suggesting you an "umbrella permission" referring to "all work credited to X and uploaded by User:Y", but this is not what you did, so this ticket is only valid for a few images. You still can reply to the ticket and extend your permission, or send a new one. --Eusebius (talk) 12:52, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
So if I send you another permission letter, you could give to that a ticket. Or could you change all of my pictures to an umbrella permission? Now I know, what you meant with that. --Eino81 (talk) 23:06, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
Hi Eusebius, I've sent to your email a document from the Hungarian National Bank about copyright on coins and banknotes which perhaps is interesting for you and other OTRS volunteers. Best regards!--Manu (talk) 17:52, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
though i have made those images but can you please tell me how can i give the credit of images to the telecentre.org? where should i mention the name of telecentre.org , in the Author or the Source field?
Hum. I am not sure I fully understand the situation. The main issue for me when I tagged your pictures was that you were referring to an external source, and therefore that we needed a permission from them. Any image coming from telecentre.org or showing their logo or URL, should get an OTRS permission from the owners of the website. Apart from that, I understand that we are talking about illustrations extracted from a book. If so, the author of an illustration should send us an OTRS permission in the same way. In the "author" field should be mentionned the name of the creator, as credited in the book (or the author of the book if there is no specific credit for the illustration). In the "source" field, I would give a full reference of the book from which the illustation comes, eventually with a link to telecentre.org if it is relevant. This kind of reference calls for an OTRS ticket, thus the permission e-mails that need to be sent. I hope it is clearer?
As the category states: "This is a by year category. This category should only contain subcategories." I've been clearing out some "by" categories. Man vyi (talk) 18:56, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
OK, but you solved nothing. Solving the problem would be creating the subcats instead of blindly deleting the information. --Eusebius (talk) 19:04, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
Hepatica nobilis
Tu as été un peu dur pour Hepatica nobilis.jpg. (image de valeur).
Je ne suis pas un photographe mais un naturaliste, c’est vrai que la forme mauve n’est pas la plus courante mais c’est peut être là l’intérêt de cette photo (qui m’a l’air de belle qualité). Dans un article les formes rares ont leur place. J’aurai volontiers soutenue cette photo mais je concours pour celle d’à-côté ce ne serait pas très « délicat ».
Ceci dit « chapeau » pour ton travail qui m’impressionne… -- Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 10:47, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
Ben c'est dur, mais c'est l'idée du projet VI, il faut rechercher l'image qui soit la plus représentative, ce qui élimine les exceptions. Ca ne veut pas dire que les formes rares n'ont pas leur place dans un article, c'est juste que l'image en tête de l'article ne devrait pas être une forme rare.
Hi, You left some message about some of my uploaded photos and request the author's permission. FYI I've forward author's email to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org address, the emails contain the permissions. Hope you can find the emails. Thank you.--Bellayet (talk) 13:26, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
Tu fais remarquer que cette photo est légèrement floue...
Je l'ai bien regardé...
Tu as raison. Je pense avoir compris depuis pourquoi j'avais ces vibrations je vais donc la refaire. Comment sort-on ou peut on dire que l'on retire une photo du concours? Merci --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 17:38, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
Au déclenchement le poids de l’objectif est trop lourd, et çà bouge. J’utilise maintenant un trépied pour l’appareil et un pour l’objectif. J’ai commander aussi un flash annulaire. Bref j’apprend la photographie grâce à… Commons. -- Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 20:40, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
Pareil pour moi (pour la dernière phrase, pas pour le flash annulaire, qui ne me sert pas à grand-chose pour photographier les cathédrales :-) L'inconvénient, c'est aussi que Commons ça fait acheter du matos ! --Eusebius (talk) 20:42, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
Ben disons que ça fait un moment que je vois les gens du projet passer derrière moi sur des catégories que j'ai modifiées ou créées (ou que je surveille), alors quand j'ai créé une catégorie pour une image à toi je me suis dit que j'allais faire un effort... Je m'appliquerai à mettre le template sur les cats que je suis amené à toucher, mais je ne compte pas participer au projet plus activement. Je fais suffisamment de trucs par ailleurs pour pouvoir te dire non sans avoir mauvaise conscience :-) Merci pour ton/votre boulot (ici et ailleurs) en tout cas. --Eusebius (talk) 21:19, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
Il n'y a pas d'obligation (pour ça comme pour le reste, d'ailleurs), c'est déjà pas si mal que ça, d'y penser quelque fois. Et bravo aussi pour ton boulot d'une manière générale. --Coyau (talk) 21:27, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
Images uploaded by Evelyn Carswell and relating to Graham Jones films and books
I received a message from you this morning informing me I had breached copyright despite warnings not to do so. This was surprising to me - because I thought the matter had been fully explored and resolved yesterday evening when a colleague of yours called Justass alerted me to the issue, requested permissions from the original copyright holder Graham Jones and was sent those permissions very swiftly. Now I am confused. Is it your position, Eusebius, that the permissions and clarifications sent to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org are not satisfactory? And if indeed this is your position, what would satisfy yourself and your colleagues? Furthermore, why was this not requested in the original declaration made by Justass? I look forward to hearing from you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hoursedge2 (talk • contribs) 10:18, 20 December 2009 (UTC) (UTC)
Hi. First, please please please sign your messages with ~~~~, it helps a lot. Regarding this issue, it may be only a procedure glitch. I haven't read your e-mails and don't know whether they are satisfactory or not, you will hear from them directly by e-mail from the OTRS volunteers, in reply to your messages. When you have sent a permission for an image, you should put {{OTRS pending}} in the permission field of that image, so that reviewers, admins and users in general know that an e-mail has been sent. It prevents your image from being tagged as problematic, or deleted (at least until the permission e-mail is evaluated). Please update the image pages in this way, and I'll remove the problem tags. Regards, --Eusebius (talk) 11:21, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
Images sur Spinosaurus
Bonjour Eusebius,
Désolé d'avoir importé des images qui ne pouvaient pas l'être sur Commons. Je viens de découvrir une procédure d'importation d'images du Wikipedia anglophone sur Commons et c'est ce que j'ai donc fait pour ces deux images en oubliant que je n'y avais pas le droit. Maintenant, j'aimerais vraiment te demander quelque chose concernant ces illustrations qui m'intéressent grandement. Elles ont été publiées en 1915 par un paléontologue allemand dans une revue scientifique allemande. Elles semblent donc être libre d'utilisation sur le sol américain mais pas dans les autres pays. C'est extrêmement frustrant de ne pas pouvoir avoir accès à des images qui apparaissent sur le Wikipedia anglophone afin d'illustrer un article Wikipédia. Que puis je faire pour utiliser de manière légale ces deux images ? J'ai contacté l'auteur de celles-ci qui m'a dit que je pouvais normalement les utiliser librement puisque tout article Wikipédia quel qu'il soit fait partie de la société Wikimedia basée aux E-U. Malheureusement, je ne peux qu'importer des images se trouvant sur Commons sur le Wikipédia francophone. Pourrais tu m'aider s'il te plaît ? Merci d'avance,--Nekar (talk) 12:08, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
Salut, c'est toujours compliqué ces histoires. Avertissement : je ne suis pas juriste. L'idée, c'est que pour la Wikipédia francophone, par exemple, on peut difficilement se prévaloir d'un droit US puisqu'elle est destinée à être diffusée dans d'autre pays. Juridiquement parlant, si l'on peut constater depuis la France qu'une image protégée est diffusée, le droit français doit pouvoir s'appliquer. C'est pour ça que les Wikipédias de langues différentes ont des politiques différentes quant aux contenus protégés. La Wikipédia anglophone a une politique de "fair use", par exemple, compatible avec la législation US (et peut-être avec la législation anglaise, je suis pas sûr), mais la Wikipédia française a une politique de "fair use" différente, s'appuyant sur la jurisprudence française. Commons, de son côté, assure des garanties plus larges, et notamment que toute image est libre de droits dans son pays d'origine (en plus des US). Ceci est pour assurer que toutes les Wikipédias puissent raisonnablement utiliser les contenus de Commons.
Concernant cette image en particulier, le seul moyen de l'utiliser proprement sur la Wikipédia francophone est de l'importer sur Commons, mais c'est pour l'instant impossible. Pour que ça devienne autorisé, il faudrait soit être sûr que l'auteur est mort avant le 31 décembre 1938, soit que ses ayants-droits (tous ses ayants-droits) nous donnent une permission explicite de publier l'image sous une licence libre, via OTRS. J'espère que c'est plus clair, même si c'est pas moins frustrant. --Eusebius (talk) 12:20, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
Oui, je comprends donc que je n'aurai jamais la possibilité d'utiliser ces deux images... L'auteur est mort en 1952 et je doute que les ayants droits (dont j'ignore qui ils sont) me donneront une permission explicite afin de publier cette image sur Wikipédia. C'est en effet extrêmement frustrant, et je déplore que les États-Unis aient plus de liberté à utiliser des œuvres que nous. Tant pis, merci pour ces explications Eusebius. A bientôt, --Nekar (talk) 16:18, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
You have taken a photograph of a document that might be copyrighted. It is a derivative work. Therefore we need to have precise sourcing information about the document and about who made it, in order to determine whether it is in the public domain or not. By default we must consider it protected. --Eusebius (talk) 08:52, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
OK, then it is a work of an organization, older than 70 years, it is in the public domain. If it was an individual work and not anonymous, it would be in the public domain only if the author died more than 70 years ago. I'll upload the image page. --Eusebius (talk) 11:09, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
for the File:Telecentre.org_Logo.jpg image could you please help me to select the right permission information. this is the logo of the telecentre.org community. i am a member of that community. A Senior Program Officer send me this logo and told that it is enough to just mention the institution name . I have seen all the publications are also published under the CC-BY-SA-3.0 license.
Hi. It's pretty simple. We need that a representative of telecentre.org (like an officer of the organization, or simply the webmaster, using the contact address of the website) send us a permission e-mail, to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org. The standard text of the permission e-mail can be found here (a licence like CC-BY-SA-3.0 is fine, they have also other choices, see here for the details.). Basically, it is the same kind of issue everytime one of your images is tagged as "missing a permission". Regards, --Eusebius (talk) 16:07, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
My category
Salut Guillaume, c'est moi. Since I add this new Ingeborg Bernhard permission, all new uploaded pictures go also to my category automaticly and not only to the category I've chosen. But the photos mainly were taken by my husband. So I ask you, if we should change the name of the category into Category:Hans and Ingeborg Bernhard, because it now contains works of art by me and photos by him. I could also change the text a little. What is your opinion and advice about this? Cheers, --Schnorch (talk) 08:46, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
Hi. A category named "Hans and Ingeborg Bernhard" is definitely not a good idea, it is better to have two distinct categories. Even if your husband took a picture of your work, it is still relevant to categorize it in "your" category, right? A category "pictures by Hans Bernhard" can still be added anyway (please remember the conversation we've had already about this category in order to make your choice). What I can do, if you want, is to remove the automatic categorization from the permission template. That's not a bad idea actually, especially if you want to subcategorize your work (like having, in the mother category "Ingeborg Bernhard", a category for watercolour, a category for ink works, etc.). If I do that, all your works should be recategorized individually. What do you think? --Eusebius (talk) 11:33, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
Good morning, Guillaume! Thank you for your kind reply. I don't think that we should do too much about all this, we can also leave it how it is. What I wanted to say is: In the category "Ingeborg Bernhard" I only had drawings and paintings (my own work), which I found nice, and now there are also photos by Hans (his own work), but we don't need a second category like "pictures by Hans Bernhard" as I told you before. It's enough that the photos belong to their individual categories and not to his name. You think it would be a good idea to remove the automatic categorization from the permission template. So I could add "Category:Ingeborg Bernhard" to my paintings and other categories like "Alhambra" oder "Lemur catta" to his photographs, right? I only be afraid that it would mean much work for you and if you want to do this because you think it will be better for the future uploads, please don't do it now in the Christmas days, there is no hurry at all. Season's greetings, merry Christmas, your grateful mentee Schnorch (talk) 09:48, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
Hi. I will remove the automatic categorization and add Category:Ingeborg Bernhard manually, it's not too much work for me (because I know the right tools to use). I didn't fully realized that your permission template had been applied to photographs by your husband. It is not correct, since the permission only covers your artwork. Your husband's picture don't really need an OTRS permission, so I'll just replace the permission template by a licence template. You can totally (and you should) add topic-related categories to the pictures, like "Alhambra" (or any applicable sub-category), independently on what we do with the author-related categories. Regards, --Eusebius (talk) 10:10, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
Hi - last remark: I deleted the category:Ingeborg Bernhard for the last two photos (Isfahan) and I hope everything is ok now. Thank you very much for your help; I'll sing a Christmas carol and shoot a New Year's rocket only for you. Schnorch (talk) 14:27, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
I noticed that you have deleted a number of images that I had tagged. Would you have time to look at a couple more that have been hanging around for a while? They are:
Nobody had looked at them because they were never transcluded in the daily deletion request pages. Are you doing your DRs manually? --Eusebius (talk) 18:53, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
I am not really aware of what it is (I hardly work on other projects), but yes, probably. Apparently it is a gadget, in other words a piece of javascript code. You have to find out where the code is on the en.WP, and then copy-paste it in your monobook.js. It can get tricky if the gadget depends on other pieces of code... --Eusebius (talk) 20:11, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
That file came from a new user whose only contributions are a self-promotion stub with two copyrighted images (also deleted by me), and a few others contributions included the one where that file was inserted, file that had two false links, a Flick one and another from blogspot as a source, so obviously another copyright violation. Anna (Cookie) (talk) 22:17, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
Hi, could you please check this image OTRS ticket. It's clear screenshot from Google maps and I cant understand under what reasons ticket was issued. Unless it comes directly from Google, but it is very unlikely --Justass (talk) 10:44, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
I confirm that the ticket does not seem to cover Google material. I deleted and left a note on the user page. Ticket is in Italian though, so maybe you will need to ask another OTRS volunteer if you need a detailed analysis of the ticket. --Eusebius (talk) 11:00, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
Why have you deleted Hebrang,_andrija_sabor.jpg when the file Vesna Pusić.jpg coming from the exact same website with the same copyright description has never been deleted since it was uploaded three-and-a-half years ago? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Whoami1999 (talk • contribs) 22:04, 27 December 2009 (UTC) (UTC)
You said, that if I uploaded an album cover, I shouldn't be uploading it on wikimedia but on wikipedia, and I did it, and now you say I uploaded it wrong, so...
But I also don't understand, where can I upload album covers? Because I don't know who made it, and I just followed the instructions...
RuuBjAh (talk) 15:00, 29 December, 2009
Hi. If I deleted it, it must be because you uploaded it on Commons, because I am not active on Wikipedia. Here we are on Commons (the default media repository of the Wikipedias), and this is (the English) Wikipedia. As I must have told you, album covers are not free of rights by default. On certain conditions, they can be used directly on certain Wikipedias, but they cannot be hosted on Commons. Please note that I am not a specialist of Wikipedia policies, but if you want to use unfree material under a "fair use" rationale on the English Wikipedia, all the information you need should be on this page. Once you know that your picture is covered by Wikipedia's policy, you can upload it directly on Wikipedia via this page, for an album cover (see here for all possible kinds of content). Feel free to contact me again if you have questions, but I know better about Commons than about Wikipedia. --Eusebius (talk) 14:42, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
Shannon Rowbury image
Hi Eusebius, thanks for the message. I'm in the process of getting an email permission for the image. As the original author is the athlete's father, I do not foresee any unexpected difficulties! I'll look to get an email permission before uploading next time. Although I've uploaded a lot of Flickr images, I still have the occasional mishap. Needless to say, the Greek no-freedom of panorama barb is a thorn in my side. Frankly it is also frustrating as from a legal point of view it is blatantly obvious that the described part of the law was not written with our application in mind. The postcard argument is borderline surreal. Of course there are few postcards of modern sculptures and buildings in Greece – any fool would realise that there is more profit in selling pictures of things of immense, unrivalled historical beauty and value instead of Greece's largely dirty and aesthetically-challenged developments of the last 80 years! But ho-hum, I'm sure you could've done without the rant! Take care. Sillyfolkboy (talk)
Hi. Same issues here in France with the non-existent Freedom of Panorama, because of a few (I'd say, less than 10) greedy and very rich architects... --Eusebius (talk) 08:00, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
The e-mail will be processed by e-mail by an OTRS volunteer. No need to duplicate the e-mail on a talk page nor to publish private e-mail addresses. --Eusebius (talk) 07:54, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
Fotos varias pendientes de aportar licencia - Paciencia
Hola Eusebius, encantado de saludarte. Disculpa que te escriba en español, no puedo hacerlo en francés. Soy totalmente nuevo en este mundo de la colaboración con Wikipedia. Me parece un proyecto apasionante. Iré aprendiendo y causaré menos problemas en el futuro. Respecto a las fotos subidas todas son OK en licencias. En los próximos días tramitaré las autorizaciones (si no me dá tiempo, ya las volveré a subir cuando haya tramitado dichas autorizaciones). Saludos y feliz año nuevo. Luis.--LuisSTP (talk) 19:09, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
OK. Envia las autorizaciones a permissions-commons-es@wikimedia.org (o permissions-commons@wikimedia.org si no esta en castellano). Cuando una autorizacion es enviada, pone {{OTRS pending}} en la pagina de la imagen, por que no sea suprimida. --Eusebius (talk) 08:42, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
I just joined(?) wikimedia.
I don't know how to email yet.
I just want to tell you how much I admire your pictures.
I have printed off "Rio bridge - wave 1.jpg"
for my own use. I will be back. Thanks, Dave
Dcromley (talk) 20:57, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
Well, thanks for your message. If you need to send an e-mail, you can find a link for it in the left-hand menu when you are on the user page (or talk page) of a user who has enabled the feature (you can choose to disable it). However, on-wiki communication is often preferred, when it does not involve private information. Regards, --Eusebius (talk) 08:44, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
_(7).jpg)
Done Restored as File:Las Meninas Poster.jpg with new version, GFDL tag and large version of the image. --Eusebius (talk) 17:03, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
_-_n._10209_-_Napoli_-_Interno_della_Galleria_Umberto_I_-_Architetto_Ernesto_de_Mauro.jpg)
- Jovan Vuković (r) 15:44, 1 July 2007. (CET)
16/9, overexposed clock out
narrower
close-up on Minerva
.JPG)
_church.JPG)
. We plan to create your account soon then. --DaB. 23:41, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
.svg)
(Talk me in spanish, english or italian) 17:31, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
(Talk me in spanish, english or italian) 23:09, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
.jpg)
.jpg)
Support ou que des 
Oppose (statut "supported" ou "opposed"), 7 jours dans tous les autres cas. Pour les faire apparaître, il faut juste attendre que le délai soit écoulé. S'ils n'apparaissent pas alors qu'ils le devraient, il faut normalement juste purger le cache de MediaWiki (pour que la page soit recalculée). J'espère avoir répondu à ta question. --Eusebius (talk) 18:06, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.JPG)
.jpg)
. Merci de toutes tes explications, je suis un peu moins bête aujourd'hui qu'hier. Cordialement -- • Hamelin [ de Guettelet ] • 03:10, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
--Justass (talk) 20:26, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
![26 Hi Eusebius about the File "Laocoonphoto.jpg"](#Hi_Eusebius_about_the_File_"Laocoonphoto.jpg"){kind=link}
![51 File:Muzeum-ORP"Burza".jpg](#File:Muzeum-ORP"Burza".jpg){kind=link}
![165 New version of file "October Revolution celebration 1983.png"](#New_version_of_file_"October_Revolution_celebration_1983.png"){kind=link}
){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
![303 [edita] File:P1030104 - Punta Alta de Comalesbienes.JPG](#[edita]_File:P1030104_-_Punta_Alta_de_Comalesbienes.JPG){kind=link}
.JPG){kind=link}
_(7).jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
![11:15, 28 January 2009 (UTC)](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Eusebius/Archives/2009#c-JohnManuel-2009-01-28T11:15:00.000Z-Hi_Eusebius_about_the_File_"Laocoonphoto.jpg"){kind=link}
![[1]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=delete&user=&page=Image%3ASaatchi2.jpg){kind=link}
![16:55, 15 February 2009 (UTC)](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Eusebius/Archives/2009#c-Julo-2009-02-15T16:55:00.000Z-File:Muzeum-ORP"Burza".jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&curid=6253918&diff=19441671&oldid=19440687){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
![[3]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=delete&page=Image%3ABbc-box-in-paisley-andrew-shaw.jpg){kind=link}
![[4]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=delete&page=Image%3ABbc-the-box-freightliner-train-soton-maritime-first-wagon.jpg){kind=link}
![[5]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=delete&page=Image%3ABbc-the-box-freightliner-train-soton-maritime-crane.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&diff=20559926&oldid=20559021){kind=link}
![02:49, 1 June 2009 (UTC)](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Eusebius/Archives/2009#c-Thomas_Hedden-2009-06-01T02:49:00.000Z-New_version_of_file_"October_Revolution_celebration_1983.png"){kind=link}
){kind=link}
_-_Brugge_-_Belgi%C3%AB.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
![[14]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:C.I.P._logo_2007.jpg){kind=link}
![[19]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Afriqueglobemapsmall.jpg&curid=7345158&diff=31943464&oldid=31918130){kind=link}
![[22]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Stanislas_L%C3%A9pine_-_Caen,_la_douane.jpg&oldid=32089516){kind=link}
![[23]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Stanislas_L%C3%A9pine_-_Caen,_la_douane.jpg&diff=32089800&oldid=32089516){kind=link}
.JPG&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.JPG){kind=link}
.JPG){kind=link}
