User talk:Fred J/Archive 4

{{Be civil}}[edit]

Regarding this fix... Thanks for catching that error. I was just trying to fix redlinks in the master list of templates, and I agree that referring to en:wp civility explanation might not be the best. Do you have ideas on how to explain civility better? Is it necessary in that template? Is the TEMPLATE necessary? Perhaps you might have some ideas or comments here: Message templates thread?? Thanks again! ++Lar: t/c 19:25, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

{{PD-Sjöfartsverket}}[edit]

Hej.
Undrar om man måste göra något särskilt för att få en ny PD mall godkänd (dvs. räknas som en giltig licenstagg)? Har varit i kontakt med Sjöfartsverket och fått reda på att liknande regler gäller för sjövägmärken som för vägmärken och tänkte därför att jag skulle sätta ihop ovanstående mall för det ändamålet.
Har förresten besvarat din Admininbjudan på min diskussionssida. /Lokal_Profil 13:46, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jo, jag såg att du besvarat min förfrågan om administratörskap, och jag respekterar din ståndpunkt.

Angående licensmallar, är det generellt så att vem som helst kan skriva en licensmall. Men tänk på att alltid i mallen länka till någon sida där licensen förklaras -- helst på engelska.

Sedan är det bra om du lägger till mallen i Commons:Copyright tags och Commons:Bybrunnen.

Fred Chess 15:24, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nu är {{PD-Sjöfartsverket}} uppe (bara lagt upp en bild än dock). Skulle du kunna ta dig ne titt på den?

Tack /Lokal_Profil 00:07, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Help needed[edit]

Hi Fred, I noticed this discussion on Village pump Commons:Village_pump#Pictures_uploaded_by_User:Botanikeren the souce is from University of Oslo open archive project, but the pages in english dont give a clear indication of copyright. Theres a link from the discussion can you take a look. Thanks Gnangarra 08:57, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

From looking at User talk:Botanikeren, the problem seems to have been solved already. / Fred Chess 12:33, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

thanks Gnangarra 23:28, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you![edit]

Re. Image:Father Smyth1.jpg. I'm a long-time en.wp editor but new to Commons. Thanks for the help :) - Ali-oops 17:50, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User responded on en. wiki here. Doesn't know how to add the lic tag and added it here. I moved it to the image page - Ali-oops 03:12, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rote Armee Fraktion logo[edit]

In regards to this: http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&type=delete&page=Image:Rote_armee_fraktion_logo.png I think it was in error.

It's originally taken from a German website. http://www.rafinfo.de/archiv/index.php

At the bottom of the page, it says "Wichtig: Du kannst das hier angebotene Material verwenden wie du möchtest. Bei der Verwendung von Bildern in anderen Webseiten, Foren oder ähnlichem kopiere die Bilder bitte auf deinen eigenen Webserver anstatt direkt auf die Bilder hier zu verlinken!"

Which translates to "Important: You can use the materials offered here however you like. When using the pictures on other websites, forums and such, copy the pictures to your own webserver please, instead of directly linking to the images here!"

If you deleted this image unaware of that text, then it was probably in error.

The Germans have re-uploaded it to their Wikipedia with the caption "rescued from the [wikimedia] commons" http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bild:Rote_armee_fraktion_logo.png

I recommend restoring it but have not done so myself because you may perhaps know something I do not regarding the image. I have taken the step of emailing the webmaster but have not yet received a response. Ich 05:19, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Responded at User_talk:Ich / Fred Chess 12:18, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

metallica download[edit]

You said here that you had to delete File:Metallicadownload1.jpg because it had a non-commercial license on flickr. So, let me see if I understand... These images can be used in wikipedia, because wikipedia is not commercial, but can't be used on commons because all images of commons are totally free, even for commercial purposes? --Serte 13:36, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You are wrong in what you write about Wikipedia. All material on English Wikipedia -- with the exception of "Fair Use" material -- must be available under a license that allows commercial use. / Fred Chess 13:44, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok... Then, check and delete these as well: File:Beckenbauergoldenball.jpg, File:Methetfielddownload.jpg and File:Figo man of the match by fanthomas.jpg.--Serte 16:53, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

All done. Thank you for notifying me. / Fred Chess 03:05, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Firefox logo[edit]

Hej. När du raderade Firefox logon på Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Firefox.svg så glömde du radera Image:Logo de firefox.png som också diskuterades där och vars "requested since for deletion" pekar på den sidan. MVH/Lokal_Profil 20:37, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ja det stämmer. Men nu är det fixat. :-) / Fred Chess 21:57, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

LOTR[edit]

Stop deletion, couse voting about it is quite strange!

--WarX 23:08, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah I concur Fred, that COM:DEL is absurd - more and more and more has been tagged onto it.--Nilfanion 23:13, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. / Fred Chess 07:05, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Armeniangenocide-streets.jpg[edit]

Hi,

regarding this image that was deleted. Just wanted to let you know that Image:Armin wegner-pile of bodies-DSC 0124.jpg would need to be deleted as well as it is from the same source. Regards Babaroga 07:04, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I've deleted it now. / Fred Chess 09:03, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:BibelTV-logo.jpg[edit]

Hallo, du hast Image:BibelTV-logo.jpg gelöscht, wenn du gelesen hättest, hättest du bemerkt, dass es unter einer creative-commons Lizenz steht. Bitte um Wiederherstellung. --Habakuk 10:54, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gut; weil es wegen {{Logo-Germany}} gelöscht wurde, habe ich es wiederhergestellt. Kann aber sein, es wird später gelöscht, wegen der "Trademark"-beschränkung.

Fred Chess 07:11, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:FOTW images[edit]

I personally do not mind the wait, since me and others are still trying to either re-create new images or trying to sort out the entire category. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return fire)} 23:13, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re - Image: Rasenganchidori.JPG[edit]

Thank you for deleting my uploaded image. I marked it as copyright violation as soon as I realised it was not allowed.

Re Image:Volcan_en_indonesie_by_grunk.jpg[edit]

I've answered your question in its talk page. I think it is clearly a copyright image. Cheers. Indon 08:40, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I see that user:Para already wrote the things I wanted to say, on the image talk page.

Fred Chess 16:12, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Nswhwpcars.jpg[edit]

Hi there. You deleted Image:Nswhwpcars.jpg. Its used in a wikinews article. Could you please temporarily undelete it so I can transfer to wikinews? Thanks. Bawolff 22:05, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The image has been restored. Please note that it was deleted because it used a cc-by-nd (non-commercial) license.

Fred Chess 22:20, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also note that it will only be restored for 48 hours, or until you tell me to delete it.

Fred Chess 13:05, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:1939FABgol2.jpg[edit]

Hello. I have commented on your deletion request for Image:1939FABgol2.jpg. It should be noted that, while the image was produced by the Brazilian Air Force, it was released to the public and media by Agência Brasil, a government agency whose purpose is to make government-created material available to the media. This matter also came up on Commons:Deletion_requests/FAB_images and I have contacted them regarding the licence discussion. They reiterated that all content posted on their site is available under the Creative Commons Attribution 2.5 Brazil licence. Thanks. Antiuser 04:06, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Oscar2.jpg[edit]

Hello. I have added this image to the wikimedia commons. This image is used in English wikipedia article on Academy Award. Thats why I added this in commons. But while uploading, an warning poped up to tell me that an image of same name has been deleted before. I think this image should fall under fair use category, but I could not find this fair use license tag. Would you please help? or would you please let me know under which license tag it should go? Thanks in advance for your kind cooperation. Auyon 13:48, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I am sorry to say, there are no fair use tags on Commons. Commons only accepts free licenses such as GFDL or Cc-by-sa.

Fred Chess 16:41, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your clarifiacation. But as this image is used in english wiki, can I put it in other language wiki too? Does fair use tag exists in other languages? For example I want to use this image in bengali wiki article on academy awrads....can I upload it in bn wiki and add the image? --Auyon 14:12, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

On Meta:Fair use there is a list of which Wikipedias allow/disallow Fair Use. BN wiki isn't mentioned in either category though. /Lokal_Profil 15:01, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You need to ask on Bengali Wikipedia, because it is something every Wikipedia decides for itself... / Fred Chess 17:20, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again, both Fred and Lokal. I am asking it in bn wiki then. Would you please delete this image from commons? I am not able to delete anything. --Auyon 12:35, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I've deleted it. / Fred Chess 14:02, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Restored[edit]

Yes, I finally understood what the big deal is. The photos was really passed me by friends, two of them. But what should I do? Reupload the images or just edit the page?

Thank you

LeonardoLima7 16:15, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again.

Editing the pages will be sufficient.

Thank you for your cooperation.

Fred Chess 16:43, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Malmö, Kockums building sign.jpg[edit]

Hej, någon har nominerat denna bild för radering, se Commons:Deletion requests/2006/10/20. Thuresson 14:42, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tack för påpekandet. / Fred Chess 15:58, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A question you asked long ago...[edit]

... has been answered. Sorry for not noticing earlier. Lupo 12:20, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, cool. / Fred Chess 12:36, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What's up with this?[edit]

Shouldn't Commons:Deletion requests/Template:PD-Germany be transcluded in Commons:Deletion requests/2006/10/22? Or is there some reason it isn't? Lupo 12:26, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ah right, I forgot. / Fred Chess 12:36, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding Commons:Deletion requests/Image:101.jpg[edit]

As I just wrote on that page, the WP:HE page of that image states that the photographer only grants free use of that image in the Hebrew Wikipedia. Tamuz 18:23, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I actually am in email correspondence with the user, and he has granted me the use of his images so long as he is attributed. It would be much appreciated if you could undelete this image. You can contact me on my Wikipedia user page. Cheers, Tewfik 19:22, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing to say[edit]

I haven't copied anything. The image is mine. I'm gonna take new photos in different angles. But give a couple of weeks. Ok?

Answer me here.

--Ricardoramirezj 06:13, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks[edit]

Thanks for MediaWiki:Village pump-url/gl and MediaWiki:Village pump/gl. Greetings. --Prevert^(talk) 10:18, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Chess[edit]

Hello Chess, I have a question for you, even if I modify an image, if I make a new image using others as reference, Am I violating the copirights of that image? I am telling you this because of the image Alquimia.jpg. I erase the discusion because I thought that if I modify the image it will be my own creation so I can use the commons license, but as you revert my changes I think I was wrong.

I really dont want to brake any law, so I just ask for your help in a peacefull way, because I see that you are a experienced guy here in commons! Thanks and I will wait for your answer... --Vmars 07:34, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi.

If you take an image and make another image based on it, you are violating the copyright. See Commons:Derivative works.

But if the image is very old then it is OK, because the image is public domain.

Fred Chess 08:26, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

PD-Sweden mallen[edit]

Hej! Du verkar ha koll på PD-Sweden mallen så jag undrar nu om den endast gäller för fotografier som är tagna och publicerade i Sverige eller om de gäller även för utlänningar som tagit bilder i Sverige men aldrig publicerat dem där. Jag skulle nämligen vilja använda några bilder från http://labourhistory.net/stockholm1917/sk031.php som handlar om fredkonferansen 1917 i Stockholm. Dock är bilderna väldigt gamla och jag vet ej om dessa togs av en svensk fotograf och då lyder under den mallen eller inte. Vad tror du om saken? //Nicke 23:06, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lagen säger:

Bestämmelserna om upphovsrätt tillämpas på
  1. verk av den som är svensk medborgare eller har sin vanliga vistelseort i Sverige,
  2. verk som först utgivits i Sverige eller samtidigt i Sverige och utom riket,
  [klipp]

[1]

Jag hoppas att detta besvarar din fråga :-)

Fred Chess 00:18, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, tackar så mycket! Nicke 00:40, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Commons:Administrators/Requests and votes/Yuval Y[edit]

I've replied your questions, and have some of my own.
Best regards, Yuval Y 12:29, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, I noticed.... / Fred Chess 12:30, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just checking... File:Blush.png Yuval Y 12:39, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No problem... I'll give you an answer later today... / Fred Chess 12:44, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. In short - are ALL THE RIGHTS of Winnie The Pooh belongs to Disney Studios..? Yuval Y 12:46, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, in short: no. But the stories and characters also belong to the heirs of A.A. Milne. It is explained at en:Winnie The Pooh#Ownership controversy and drastic changes. It is untrue that the works are public domain because they were published in 1926 -- they only become public domain after Milne has been dead for 70 years (in most countries). / Fred Chess 13:46, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I see. Could we atleast keep the originals, which I've found in the English Wikipedia, and that sweet puppy?
Yuval Y 15:22, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is possible. Sorry I can't say for sure! At least I don't think they should be speedy deleted. It is possible that someone nominates them for deletion. Then we'll see what happens... / Fred Chess 18:19, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok by me... Yuval Y 18:53, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Administrator terrorist 2.png[edit]

Please do not be like that. --Cat out 01:44, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I also tend to agree that this is not in good taste. I kindly ask if you could replace this image. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return fire)} 02:31, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Administrator terrorist 2.png nominated for deletion[edit]

Image deletion warning

Image:Administrator terrorist 2.png has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

If you created this image, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue. If the file is up for deletion because it has been superseded by a superior derivative of your work, consider the notion that although the file may be deleted, your hard work (which we all greatly appreciate) lives on in the new file.
In all cases, please do not take the deletion request personally. It is never intended as such. Thank you!

Afrikaans ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ bosanski ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ ∙ eesti ∙ English ∙ español ∙ Esperanto ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ hrvatski ∙ íslenska ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ occitan ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ polski ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ shqip ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ suomi ∙ svenska ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ Türkçe ∙ Zazaki ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ ∙ български ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ српски / srpski ∙ українська ∙ հայերեն ∙ বাংলা ∙ മലയാളം ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ ไทย ∙ 조선말 ∙ 한국어 ∙ 日本語 ∙ 简体中文‎ ∙ 繁體中文‎ ∙ עברית ∙ العربية ∙ پښتو ∙ فارسی ∙ ދިވެހިބަސް ∙ +/−

++Lar: t/c 13:43, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Freedom of panorama[edit]

Looks like you answered my question. Does this comment mean that the commons applies only the law of the source country for "freedom of panorama" images? Commons:Licensing still says to apply both the laws of the source country and the U.S. So why are "freedom of panorama" images treated differently? (Note: I'm only trying to understand the reasoning here.) Lupo 08:32, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Admin terrorists...[edit]

Please don't troll to make a point. Cary "Bastiq▼e" Bass ^demandez 18:32, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It was an example of very bad taste/judgement on my behalf. / Fred Chess 19:50, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ummm[edit]

Is there any particular reason you appear to be against[2] deleting spam on commons gallery pages? :) I'm quite confused. Even enwiki saw it for what it was when it was plastered all over there... On commons it would have been eligible for deletion just on the basis of being misplaced. Is there something I'm missing? :-/ --Gmaxwell 05:26, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't delete it at the time, because I thought it may be of interest, and since it was released under GFDL maybe could be put on Wikipedia. / Fred Chess 19:54, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image Tagging Image:Sea serpent.jpg[edit]

العربية ∙ asturianu ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ ∙ বাংলা ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ English ∙ español ∙ euskara ∙ فارسی ∙ suomi ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ עברית ∙ hrvatski ∙ magyar ∙ italiano ∙ 日本語 ∙ 한국어 ∙ македонски ∙ മലയാളം ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ norsk ∙ polski ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ русский ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ svenska ∙ ไทย ∙ Türkçe ∙ українська ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ 简体中文‎ ∙ 繁體中文‎ ∙ +/−

This media may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:Sea serpent.jpg. I notice the image page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you have not created this media yourself then you need to argue that we have the right to use the media on Wikimedia Commons (see copyright tagging below). If you have not created the media yourself then you should also specify where you found it, i.e., in most cases link to the website where you got it, and the terms of use for content from that page. If the content is a derivative of a copyrighted work, you need to supply the names and a licence of the original authors as well.

If the media also doesn't have a copyright tag, then you must also add one. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then you can use {{self|cc-by-sa-2.5}} to release it under the Creative Commons or {{PD-self}} to release it into the public domain. See Commons:Copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

Note that any unsourced and untagged images will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have uploaded other media, please check that you have specified their source and copyright tagged them, too. You can find all your uploads using the Gallery tool. Thank you. Siebrand 07:57, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Siebrand, the category should have been a clear hint (and does give the source). I've now copied over the description from the English Wikipedia. Lupo 09:09, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lupo, I'd like to interprete as little as possible. Thank you for adding the info. I've also added {{PD-old}} based in your info. Siebrand 10:08, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Most likely copyvios[edit]

Hi, you may look at the contributions list here. Most of them seem to be TV screenshots from Germany and are not legal for german Wiki but are already used there.--NSX-Racer 18:37, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The uploader has just admitted that he made screenshots with his TV-PC, which is copyvio in Germany, see here.--NSX-Racer 22:20, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Namnbyte[edit]

Hej Fred! Jag har just bytt namn på svenska Wikipedia till Användare:Celsius. Jag skulle gärna vilja göra samma byte här, eftersom User:Celsius inte verkar vara upptaget. Jag vore tacksam om du skulle kunna ordna det. Tupsharru 14:16, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bara om du lovar att vara snäll. / Fred Chess 15:43, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jag har ätit några virtuella pepparkakor. (Varsågod, ta några själv!) Tupsharru 16:20, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hur ska jag kunna säga nej till något sådant... / Fred Chess 16:44, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tack för hjälpen! Celsius 16:55, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What license?[edit]

hi, Fred! Please, advise me on what license should I use for the images I want to UL to the commons. Please, see the David Crown's license for details. Thanks! –Vinoda 20:33, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly unfree images[edit]

Hej! Jag funderar på om inte nåt TV-bolag borde ha upphovsrätt för delar av de här bilderna: Image:Sverige tar OS-guld i ishockey efter finalen år 2006 mot Finland i Turin, Italien, bild1.JPG och Image:Sverige tar OS-guld i ishockey efter finalen år 2006 mot Finland i Turin, Italien, bild 2.JPG. --Boivie 15:57, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Det kan man rimligen tycka. / Fred Chess 23:49, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Privacy issues[edit]

I'm a bit frustrated with editors "inventing" U.S. laws that don't exist. What's to be done? Rklawton 04:10, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi.

Deletion requests tend to become chaotic because of its voting nature. You might want to take the discussion to a policy level by posting at Commons_talk:Licensing. / Fred Chess 16:54, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good points. I agree that this might become a policy issue, but I think it should wait until after the AfD, and only then if the closing admin chooses to delete both images.

I gave this image a lot of thought before I posted it months ago. I knew it held a lot of power. As you noted, typically, but regrettably, some folks are muddying the waters with "I don't like the image" issues, or imagined legal issues. I hope the closing admin sees these for what they are. The issue at stake here is really the current "any use" policy – it's a risky one for Commons to take. However, I think it makes more sense for the RfD to run its course. If the closing admin interprets policy in such a way that allows the image to remain, then I really have no grounds to elevate it to a policy level. Rather than bother the policy folks prematurely, wouldn't it be best to see how things sort themselves out first?

The Policy issue at hand: commons holds that its images can be put to "any use." However, that's simply not true – at least not without risk – and this particular image helps bring out the issue for us to discuss (I could have posted an image of a gory car wreck head-through-the-windshield sort of thing, but who wants to look at that every day as the discussion unfolds?). As per my recent posts, the idea that any image can be put to any use (with an "any use" release) is simply not true. A court might rule that a particular use is unconscionable if there exists no specific provision in the release to the contrary – and how would anyone write a release that covers every possibility?

It's much safer and more accurate to say that an image's purported creator has given up all or parts of his/her copyright. After that, it becomes incumbent upon a prospective publisher to determine whether or not permission for a particular use is questionable. Note that commercial use is often questionable. Free speech matters such as editorial use or social commentary are rarely questionable. The important part is that Commons stays out of these determinations lest it find itself at risk when some model doesn’t like how his/her image has been used. It could be as simple as using an image of a person in an ice-tea advertisement (of all things). The model, a Mormon, photographed by a trusted Mormon photographer, may have never considered that his image might be used to promote a proscribed beverage – and file suit. There are many stock photography-related cases where models with signed releases and contracts have won cases when the court determined the image's use unconscionable. At any rate, it's important for Commons to differentiate between copyright and a subject's permission simply because that's how the professional photography world works. I hope this image and the resulting discussion helps make this matter clear.

I welcome any suggestions you care to provide. Rklawton 17:39, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So this image is a Breaching Experiment? I'll give you a suggestion: Don't do that. ++Lar: t/c 22:14, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rklawton, I opened a thread at Commons:Administrators'_noticeboard#People_who_have_not_given_their_consent a couple of days ago. You might be interesting in replying there. I think it would be fair of me to give you a longer reply, but unfortunately I am involving myself in too many projects at the moment... / Fred Chess 22:24, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rklawton, the world is not black or white... so we can say that we desire that a work be available for as many uses as possible without demanding that every conceivable abuse will also be permitted. Given a choice between two works one which presents issues of privacy, ethics, or publicity rights ... and another (perhaps theoretical) image which avoids those issues yet is just as good for our purposes, we should and do prefer the latter. When we do not yet have the trouble free image but both the troubles and the possibility of a sufficiently trouble free alternative are clear enough we may sometimes reject the troubled image, even if it meets our basic licensing criteria, in order to help keep the motivation high for producing a better image.--Gmaxwell 22:29, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Model consent in Commons is inconsistent at best; and a standard form in Commons doesn't exist. Pretty much any image can be abused, so the statement "any use" is very troublesome. Since the burden normally rests with the publisher, there's no reason for Commons to promote an "any use" policy. Indeed, by informing publishers that "any use" is OK, Commons may be opening itself up to one heck of a liability - and that worries me. Lastly, you'll note in w:Talk:Childhood obesity that I support any move that replaces the existing image with one more suitable. As with anything wiki, all our work is subject to improvement; it's the main reason why Wikipedia and related projects are doing so well on the Internet. Rklawton 00:12, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to be laboring under the impression that all usage on Wikimedia is editorial in nature. While it might be true for this single image, it's not true in the general case. We use images for many purposes including mere decoration... and we certainly intend our downstream users to be able to use our image as broadly as possible, at least as broadly as they could use works from any stock photo agency. In any case, I'd missed that you'd support improving the image... That didn't seem to be the case because you didn't support masking her face. --Gmaxwell 02:25, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My concern is for the images used in Wikipedia's articles, though your point about other usage here is well taken. Note that agencies using pictures from stock photo suppliers still require copies of model releases, and in some cases, they'll request specific releases. Few are foolish enough to risk the cost of reworking ad materials without one in hand. My concern here is that with Commons' atypical policy approach, an organization finding itself on the wrong end of the legal gun may try to use this very policy to shield itself. That is, they may claim that Commons represented its images as OK to use in any way, when that simply isn't the case. The big boys (YouTube comes to mind at the moment) simply takes down an image when the subject or the true copyright holder makes a complaint. This keeps them in the clear, liability-wise. On a separate note, today's posts appear to revolve not around the legalities, but around ethics. I'll post my comment on ethics in the main discussion shortly. I appreciate these editor's concerns. However, we need to recall that Commons also has a policy about censorship. Therefore, the fact that some folks are offended by an image is irrelevant. Rklawton 04:41, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fradulent?[edit]

The deletion of this image, Image:Db mm fma.gif was wrong ... The person who created it for the website it went to was the one that originally loaded it to en wiki. --Evrik 14:33, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I can restore it, but why was there a copyvio tag on it? Have new evidence come forth that proves it isn't a copyright violation? Can you add a link to this evidence? / Fred Chess 15:04, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't remember who tagged it as a copyvio because I can't see the history anymore. The man who uploaded it is a Saleisan Brother and told me it was his image used on a website. --Evrik 18:40, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would like this to be true, but the original claim by the uploader "No copyright notice at http://www.donbosco.hr" is fishy to me. If he had created it himself I'd expect him to say so. So to conclude I think you should utilize Commons:Undeletion requests for others to comment. / Fred Chess 19:07, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

About Loco085[edit]

Sure, I know him very well and we are in contact everyday at the Spanish Wikipedia IRC channel. I was talking with several admins those days explaining why they should view Commons duties as a part of their admin work in es:. I will help him and others from Wikipedia, you can see today's activities from User:Patricio.lorente, while he has a few edits on Commons to become admin, he is smart and wants to help, so I was teaching him to do some maintenance also. I'll be always ready to teach them.

In addition, we have a User in es: that masters Javascript/Monobook quite quite well. He has developed this tool that is very useful to put templates just pressing a button. Since its introduction into the Spanish Wikipedia, many non-admin users can help with maintenance tasks easily. I asked him if he can make a simpler version of this tool for Commons. Barcex 21:31, 15 November 2006 (UTC) PS: Me and Loco085 are not Spanish, we're from Argentina (while right know I'm living in Madrid) :)[reply]

Image:Quick et Flupke Bruxelles Wall Paint.jpg[edit]

Hi. I have deleted this image because Belgium doesn't allow free photography outdoors. See Commons:Freedom of panorama. Fred Chess 09:53, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oops. Wasn't aware of that. I've uploaded a bunch of these wall paints... There is the list :

I suppose you can delete all of these... Sorry for the inconvenience. Jgremillot 11:19, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'll get to them shortly. / Fred Chess 18:59, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Urgent request to review vote[edit]

Please see the info I posted here: Commons:Deletion requests/Berlinare Flickr photos by Howie Berlin - Howie did agree to commercial use as long as the images were max 300px width and height, I have the whole conversation still recorded on my Flickr account. Arniep 18:41, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've written him again (he must think we are retarded...) / Fred Chess 18:59, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Che Guevara[edit]

I've just left a comment to your comment (would it be a "metacomment"? :)) in Commons:Deletion requests/Image:CheGuevara.png. Regards from the Far South, Cinabrium 23:11, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I'll take a look at it. / Fred Chess 12:16, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Maksim[edit]

Did you notice that Maksim was last active in April...?

Fred Chess 22:50, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Only after the block. Didn't care enough to unblock. --Cat out 04:11, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: COM:AN[edit]

Hey Fred, anyone can request WerdnaBot to archive anything (including, oh, say, your talk page :)). Just ask User:Werdna. cheers, pfctdayelise (说什么?) 00:11, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

malluco[edit]

Thanks for responding and taking some action. :) I realize I should have posted in the User area of the admin board, but now I know. Cheers, Fang Aili 00:38, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Commons:Administrator translations/Suspected copyvio[edit]

Hello,

I recall you didn't like my user:pfctdayelise/translations (well, the layout) at some stage. I moved them here now and just gave them a big cleanup, hopefully you will find it a lot more usable now. cheers, pfctdayelise (说什么?) 14:29, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. I actually haven't used them in a long time, but I'll keep it in mind. / Fred Chess 15:44, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]