User talk:Webfil

Copyright status: File:Mont Logan (Gaspésie).jpg

Copyright status: File:Mont Logan (Gaspésie).jpg

This media may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading File:Mont Logan (Gaspésie).jpg. I notice that the file page either doesn't contain enough information about the license or it contains contradictory information about the license, so the copyright status is unclear. If you created this file yourself, then you must provide a valid copyright tag. For example, you can tag it with {{self|GFDL|cc-by-sa-all}} to release it under the multi-license GFDL plus Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike All-version license or you can tag it with {{PD-self}} to release it into the public domain. (See Commons:Copyright tags for the full list of license tags that you can use.) If you did not create the file yourself or if it is a derivative of another work that is possibly subject to copyright protection, then you must specify where you found it (e.g. usually a link to the web page where you got it), you must provide proof that it has a license that is acceptable for Commons (e.g. usually a link to the terms of use for content from that page), and you must add an appropriate license tag. If you did not create the file yourself and the specific source and license information is not available on the web, you must obtain permission through the VRT system and follow the procedure described there. Note that any unsourced or improperly licensed files will be deleted one week after they have been marked as lacking proper information, as described in criteria for deletion. If you have uploaded other files, please confirm that you have provided the proper information for those files, too. If you have any questions about licenses please ask at Commons:Village pump/Copyright or see our help pages. Thank you.

Yours sincerely, Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 02:58, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Toussaint cartier.jpg

Je ne suis pas l'auteur et je tente et je détaille autant que je peux l'auteur mais je suis incapable de faire plus. JE NE SUIS PAS L'AUTEUR SE SONT DES IMAGES TROUVÉES SUR INTERNET. Quoi faire de plus ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Steeve1964 (talk • contribs) 14:57, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

An unfree Flickr license was found on File:Rideau sinkhole repairs.jpg

---

A file that you uploaded to Wikimedia Commons from Flickr, File:Rideau sinkhole repairs.jpg, was found available on Flickr by an administrator or reviewer under the license Noncommercial (), No derivative works (), or All Rights Reserved (), which isn't compatible with Wikimedia Commons, per the licensing policy. The file has been deleted. Commons:Flickr files/Appeal for license change has information about sending the Flickr user an appeal asking for the license to be changed. Only Flickr images tagged as (CC BY), (CC BY-SA), (CC0) and (PDM) are allowed on Wikimedia Commons. If the Flickr user has changed the license of the Flickr image, feel free to ask an administrator to restore the file, or start an undeletion request.

Túrelio (talk) 07:43, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

Copyright status: File:Train of Thought animation.webm

Copyright status: File:Train of Thought animation.webm

This media may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading File:Train of Thought animation.webm. I notice that the file page either doesn't contain enough information about the license or it contains contradictory information about the license, so the copyright status is unclear. If you created this file yourself, then you must provide a valid copyright tag. For example, you can tag it with {{self|GFDL|cc-by-sa-all}} to release it under the multi-license GFDL plus Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike All-version license or you can tag it with {{PD-self}} to release it into the public domain. (See Commons:Copyright tags for the full list of license tags that you can use.) If you did not create the file yourself or if it is a derivative of another work that is possibly subject to copyright protection, then you must specify where you found it (e.g. usually a link to the web page where you got it), you must provide proof that it has a license that is acceptable for Commons (e.g. usually a link to the terms of use for content from that page), and you must add an appropriate license tag. If you did not create the file yourself and the specific source and license information is not available on the web, you must obtain permission through the VRT system and follow the procedure described there. Note that any unsourced or improperly licensed files will be deleted one week after they have been marked as lacking proper information, as described in criteria for deletion. If you have uploaded other files, please confirm that you have provided the proper information for those files, too. If you have any questions about licenses please ask at Commons:Village pump/Copyright or see our help pages. Thank you.

Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 22:58, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

File:Murale dans le parc linéaire de l'antenne Longue-Pointe.jpg

File:Murale dans le parc linéaire de l'antenne Longue-Pointe.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!

A1Cafel (talk) 02:44, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

File:06M P48S1P23515.jpg

File:06M P48S1P23515.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!

219.78.190.198 03:03, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

?

Bro, qu'est-ce que tu fais?--Danalieth (talk) 19:54, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

Bassins versants Laurentides

Salut

Vous avez fait une magnifique carte bien faite et bien compréhensible des bassins versants de Lanaudière. Serait-ce trop demandé d'en faire une pour les Laurentides également?

Merci beaucoup 96.22.228.193 03:32, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

Guglielminetti

Bonjour, Je te consulte parce que j'hésite à propos de la capture d'écran de Bruno Guglielminetti. En général, Commons considère que le créateur et propriétaire des droits d'auteur est la personne qui contrôle l'image et que le contrôle, aussi limité soit-il, est constitué notamment par le choix de la position et de l'angle de la caméra et le choix de ce qui est visible à l'arrière-plan, etc., ce qui dans ce cas-ci serait plutôt l'oeuvre de Guglielminetti et non l'oeuvre d'un employé de TVA. Alternativement, certains pourraient considérer que le contrôle est tellement minime que l'image pourrait être dans le domaine public. En supposant que les droits d'auteur appartiennent à Guglielminetti, TVA a bien sûr l'autorisation de Guglielminetti pour utiliser l'image dans cette entrevue, mais TVA n'a vraisemblablement pas obtenu l'autorisation de l'offir en licence libre. C'est moins évident que dans le cas d'images provenant d'autres médias que TVA réutiliserait, mais le principe général peut être semblable dans le cas d'images comme celle-ci dont la création à l'origine n'est pas faite par des employés de TVA. (La même question se serait posée pour l'image de Michel Bergeron si la vidéo concernée avait été libre.) -- Asclepias (talk) 18:05, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

Bonjour @Asclepias. Merci d'apporter ton éclairage à cette situation. Je n'avais pas considéré l'aspect de la création, mais seulement de la diffusion. En effet, lors d'entrevues en duplex, il importe de se questionner sur l'intention du créateur, et si elle diffère de celle du diffuseur. Cependant, je ne suis pas certain de partager cette idée que l'interviewé est celui qui contrôle l'image. Un bulletin de nouvelles demeure tout de même une création en soi, lourd de toute cette programmation éditoriale, production et post-production. Le clip ici utilisé n'existe pas hors de ce bulletin; la vidéo de Guglielminetti est une partie de l'œuvre, mais est-ce que le bulletin de nouvelles est une œuvre dérivée de cette vidéo?

Est-ce que ça mérite un débat dans une requête en suppression? Quoi qu'il en soit, si je me fie au portrait que m'ont dressé ses donneurs d'ouvrage comme conférencier, je pense qu'on peut compter sur sa générosité pour obtenir de lui une renonciation dans VTRS, voire même une autre photo libre de droit si celle-ci venait qu'à être retirée de Commons. Webfil (talk) 18:21, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

I'm notifying @Rubythrees, who has also updloaded File:Danièle Sauvageau.png which falls under Category:Still images from videos by TVA Nouvelles and also is a screenshot from a teleconference duplex. Asclepias has doubts over the rights ownership in theses cases. Asclepias mentionned that Commons generally considers the person who controls the image to be the creator and owner of the copyright, and that the control, however limited, is expressed by the choice of the position and angle of the camera and the choice of what is visible in the background, etc., which in this case would be the work of the interviewee and not the work of a TVA employee.

What do you think? Webfil (talk) 18:44, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

@Rubythrees: It's fine. I just wanted to know what Webfil thought about it. There's no real problem. -- Asclepias (talk) 19:07, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

Je suppose qu'il est possible que la personne à l'origine de ce type particulier d'image n'exerce pas de contrôle suffisant pour que ça créée des droits d'auteur pour elle. Je voulais savoir ce que tu en pensais. Je n'ai pas d'opinion précise sur la question. Merci de la réponse. On peut laisser l'image comme elle est. -- Asclepias (talk) 19:02, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

Bull-Doser

Rebonjour. Bull-Doser suit la discussion. Il a juste essayé de supprimer une de ses images pour la même raison que vous avez évoquée - la politique de la salle de spectacles sur les photos - et à tort ou à raison, cela a été rejeté par un administrateur/bureaucrate comme incomplete, without valid reason. Shawn à Montréal (talk) 15:09, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

Français : Bonjour @Shawn à Montréal. En effet, @Jeff G. l'a déjà mentionné ici; la demande n'a pas été formulée conformément à COM:DEL, c'est pourquoi elle a été révoquée. Les motifs, quant à eux, doivent être débattus par la communauté.

English: Hello @Shawn à Montréal. Indeed @Jeff G. mentionned it here; the request was not compliant with COM:DEL, that is why it was revoked. On the other hand, the rationales must be debated by the community.

Webfil (talk) 17:09, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

I'd also add that the said collection of images is undoubtedly under copyright, and that no VRT ticket has waived any of these copyrights. Webfil (talk) 17:38, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

(I'll continue in my native English if you have no objection.) At least it shows that he is trying to comply, imo. Perhaps an argument for not completely banning his uploads. Though as I mentioned at the discussion, I can't commit to regularly policing his uploads. bonne journée! --Shawn à Montréal (talk) 18:05, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

@Shawn à Montréal and Webfil: Yes, it was nice to see him try, but he did not follow through and the venue policy on photos is a COM:NCR. Have you seen any reasons given by Admins for not blocking him already? On a different note, do Montréal, Quebec, or Canada have any anti-stalking or anti-peeping laws he may be breaking? I visited Montréal for a couple of weeks some decades ago and found it to be cleaner and friendlier than New York City. Thanks for switching to my native English.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ _{please ping or talk to me}🇺🇦 23:37, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

@Jeff G. : the province has one among the few civil codes enacted in Canada, nay North America. It has provisions regarding the respect of reputation and privacy, and considers the appropriation or usage of one's image or voice while they are in private premises as an invasion of privacy, and thousands of rulings pertaining to these articles guiding their interpretation. On the other hand, the Code stipulates that the information of the public is a rightful purpose to use one's name, image or likeness. The Supreme Court of Canada's Aubry case has narrowed down the interpretation of these matters. As I summarized elsewhere, the court defined the questions that must be asked in order to determine if the public interest prevails over the right to image :

• Is the subject of the picture engaged in a public activity? e.g. an artistic event, politics, a matter within the public domain such as an important trial, a major economic activity having an impact on the use of public funds or an activity involving public safety;
• If not, does the individual’s own action, albeit unwitting, accidentally places him or her in the photograph in an incidental manner? e.g. in a crowd at a sporting event or a demonstration.
• If not, is the individual an anonymous element of the scenery, even if it is technically possible to identify individuals in the photograph? The observer’s attention would then normally be directed elsewhere than towards the individual.

Most of Bull-Doser's work fell into the first category, but some of it did not fit in any of the exceptions and were obviously not the object of specific, explicit or implicit consent, therefore were likely to have been published in violation of the civil code.

As for the criminal code of Canada, I do not know enough to tell with certitude, but I am pretty sure that invasion of privacy is a civil matter that is not regarded by that law (civil matters are a provincial sphere of competence in Canada). Webfil (talk) 21:47, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

Thanks. So does anyone pictured want to sue him for invasion of privacy? He can't upload any more.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 22:27, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

@Jeff G., you have your answer right there. Webfil (talk) 16:09, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, Webfil, for following up with Bull-Doser as you have. Shawn à Montréal (talk) 16:40, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

@Shawn à Montréal Yea I feel sorry for the little fella. Il n'a clairement pas la capacité de comprendre les conséquences de ses gestes ni même d'en avoir le plein contrôle. Il me semble avoir lu qu'il a quelques problèmes qui ne lui permettent pas d'avoir cette compréhension, ou du moins pas instantanément. Le mieux qu'on puisse faire, c'est de l'aider à ne pas trop faire de dommages... Webfil (talk) 18:48, 7 March 2024 (UTC)