User talk:King of Hearts/Archive/2021/Q3

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Thoughts on taking pictures of city buildings in close quarters[edit]

Hi KoH,

A question for you, both as someone who knows NYC and who's quite a knowledgeable architectural photographer.

Among WikiProject NYC members (and Wikimedia NYC members) there's been a lot of talk lately about taking pictures of buildings in the city. Invariably the subject of how to get a decent shot from across the street comes up, and I wonder what your thoughts are. Obviously, the taller (or wider) the building the more compromises you'd need to make regarding perspective and distortion, and wide angle lenses are probably preferred, but do you have any tips? You can respond here and I'll copy your response, or you could leave the message at en:Wikipedia talk:WikiProject New York City. It's also come up just now on our WMNYC Discord server, so a good a time as any to invite you to join. :) Thanks. — Rhododendrites talk |  19:22, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

What's the difference?[edit]

You replaced my copyvio template with another copyvio template in File:Eckhard Nagel (2021).jpg, I fail to see the relevant difference. Why was this replacement necessary? What subtleties of of anglophone legalese did I fail to see? In the exif it's clearly stated that it's a non-free pic by a certain author, that's probably not the uploader. That's a copyvio, why was my template wrong? Grüße vom Sänger ♫ (talk) 13:12, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

{{Copyvio}} is for unsalvageable copyvios that have almost no chance of being kept. Since you failed to provide evidence of it existing elsewhere on the Internet, it is possible that the uploader was provided the file privately by the creator. In such cases there is a much higher chance the status can be cleared via COM:OTRS. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 17:40, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
More precisely, the difference is in the talk page message given to the uploader. {{Copyvionote}} just tells them it's a copyvio without giving them instructions to correct the issue. {{Image permission}} has helpful advice on what to do if they do have permission from the copyright holder. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 17:48, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Template:Copyvio is the first choice anybody would use for such blatant copyvios like the one in Eckhard Nagel (2021). If I go to the templates page, nothing tells me anything about any restrictions in use, it's imho the one-size-fits-all, 08/15 template for all and any copyvios. At least that's how any not so heavy invested editor her would read it. There is no hint about any other templates, nothing. Grüße vom Sänger ♫ (talk) 08:38, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It's a judgment call. In this case, the high resolution and full EXIF make it more likely that the uploader was provided the file privately by the author, especially as I cannot find any copies of it at this resolution online. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 08:42, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but still: Template:Copyvio ist the norm for all kinds of copyvio, not just for unsalvageable copyvios, at least that's what it's name and description says. Therefor the 1=Reason given is mandatory for explanations of that special case. An author by name and a explicitly restricted usability in the EXIF shows, that it's probably something for use on the homepage or some leaflet or such, but where the author still keeps the copyright, so imho it's even something of those obviously unsalvageable copyvios. Grüße vom Sänger ♫ (talk) 08:49, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Technically speaking, a salvageable copyvio is not a copyvio at all; to call it a copyvio would be assuming bad faith. Instead, it is a potentially free file which we haven't yet received proper documentation for. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 08:56, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Then perhaps some admins or such should update the description of the template, as per name it's the one-size-fits-all for each and any copyvio. If it's only for a few select cases, there should be a prominent warning on top of the templates page, with all alternatives with strange and more illegible names for it in there (including description of those use-cases for normal, i.e. non-english speaking, users. And something with such an obvious EXIF is a straightforward copyvio case, nothing possibly fishy about it, no it's clear and nearly unambiguous. Grüße vom Sänger ♫ (talk) 09:21, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Again, you are simply not correct. A non-matching EXIF author is not considered a blatant copyvio unless there are aggravating factors such as the EXIF author is a famous person or organization like AP/Getty, or a history of copyvios / lots of images with mismatched EXIF from the same uploader. In all other cases, fishy metadata only makes for a suspected copyvio, good for DR but not speedy. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 09:27, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Ich sag's mal auf Deutsch, da kenn' ich mich besser aus, und versuche eine Übersetzung hinterher:
Diese spezielle EXIF ist ein eindeutiger Nachweis einer illegalen Urheberrechtsberühmung, ein Bezahlschreiberling nimmt sich ein fremdes Foto und lädt es einfach hoch, weil es gut aussieht. Ich wüsste nicht, was es da groß zu diskutieren gäbe, zumindest sollten solche Sachen bei Bezahlschreiberlingen nicht mit AGF behandelt werden.
This special EXIF is an unambiguous proof of an illegal (Copyfraud?), a paid marketing texter takes a picture of someone else and simply uploads it, because it looks good. I can't see, what's there to discuss, at least there is no room for AGF for those paid marketing texters. Grüße vom Sänger ♫ (talk) 10:01, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Again, if they are a paid marketer, then it can only make it more likely that they are using the photo in an authorized manner, something which can only be discovered by giving them an OTRS option. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 16:04, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Anyways, {{Copyvio}} is very much not for cases where the uploader indicates that a different person took the photo or if it is unclear whether the uploader is the same person as the named author; {{No permission since}} was tailor-made for this scenario. {{Copyvio}} is generally only for when you have hard evidence of a copyvio. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 08:48, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
As I said: Those EXIF is a hard evidence of a URV, what else do you need? Grüße vom Sänger ♫ (talk) 08:50, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No it's not, EXIF can be falsified, deleted, etc. It would be very impolite to a new user if they signed up for Commons under a pseudonym and kept their real name in the EXIF, only to see their photos deleted immediately. EXIF should not be the sole basis for speedy deletion except in obvious cases like AP, Getty, etc. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 08:56, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The "new user" is a Paid Editor, no impoliteness possible, anything but a block is polite in the first. The EXIF is clear: Copyright status Copyrighted, Copyright holder andre zelck, essen - landau, nothing ambiguous. I can't imagine anything much more straightforward but such cases. Grüße vom Sänger ♫ (talk) 09:01, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Commons has no policy against paid editing; in fact, the community has voted to explicitly override the WMF's default policy (which project communities are allowed to do) and replace it with no policy at all. If they want to contribute a photo of a notable individual, what's wrong with that? "Copyrighted" does not mean "not freely licensed". (By the way, my "new user" example was not meant to refer to this case, but rather a hypothetical example.) -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 09:07, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I understood that with "new user" being more general, but there a huge difference between "new users" and "new users". Professionals like paid editors get money for their work, so they have to be informed about us as first, the a precondition we can assume, not knowing anything is no valid excuse for professionals like PE. They should especially know everything about the Urheberrecht, that's what they got their money for. Real new users on the other hand should be dealt with spades of AGF. Grüße vom Sänger ♫ (talk) 09:25, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Sänger: Take a look at the history of File:JoeTalbotFilmmaker2020.jpg. This is precisely why we use {{No permission since}} instead of speedy deleting on sight, whenever we see an image tagged with a different author than the uploader. It doesn't work all the time and a majority still end up getting deleted, but if it makes the experience more pleasant for the 10-20% of uploaders who follow up, it's worth it to me to wait the extra week. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:28, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

All those are copyvios, with different degrees of it. Why is there such a plethora of illegible templates, instead of one, where different reasons could be given? At least the one with the name if just Copyvio should be one for all cases, not just the blatant ones. Remember: This is an international venue, good knowledge of English should never ever be required for the use of the most obvious templates. Copyvio is probably known to most non-english editors, so this is the first template you will come to, and then use, if nothing else is provided in that templates page. Grüße vom Sänger ♫ (talk) 07:22, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Instructions are given in German here: Commons:Deletion policy/de. It tells you when to use each template. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:03, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Ariade Lee.jpg[edit]

Hi - you removed the {{copyvio}} template with only this comment: Old image, needs discussion. I've added further evidence that this is a copyright violation, can you please elaborate a specific rationale in the discussion why this is not a copyright violation. Regards,--Goldsztajn (talk) 23:18, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

{{Copyvio}} is only for obvious copyright violations. I am not saying that it isn't a copyright violation, only that it isn't an obvious one that we can delete without discussion. So by opening a DR we give people who may be more well-versed in copyright law than us the opportunity to present arguments as to why it is PD. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:42, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It's sourced to a notoriously unreliable site that engages in endemic copyright violations, the EXIF data appears to have been scrubbed, the image is directly attributable to a renown Life photographer and there are copyright claims in place. I suspect our notions of obvious differ. :) Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 07:08, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
US photos from 1940 have a significant chance of falling under {{PD-US-no notice}} or {{PD-US-not renewed}}. Even with big organizations like LIFE there is a chance of works slipping through the cracks, like w:It's a Wonderful Life. In a regular DR, the burden of proof is on those wishing to retain an image. For speedy, the burden is on those wishing to delete it. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 15:43, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
A burden of proof is not permanent in the face of evidence; providing a link to the source of the image with copyright status shifts the burden of proof. At the very least a justification beyond "old picture" is necessary given the status of the origin of the photo; ie, it's more than reasonable to assume, given the digitalisation of the Life archive, (a) that copyright was renewed or (b) as it appears the image was not published, then copyright is held for 70 years after the death of the author. Either way, I don't see this as the same class of a one-off movie poster that is not part of a commercial archive. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 23:35, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that you don't even know whether the copyright was renewed or whether the image was published at all, is precisely why a discussion is necessary. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:47, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The point is not a lack of knowledge, the point is that whichever way one tries to argue (published at the time/not published until the digitalisation of the archive), there's no reasonable grounds to assume the image is not copyright given the nature of the Life Magazine archive and its creation. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 06:12, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes there is: published at the time without copyright notice, or published at the time and not renewed. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:07, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Watermark laundering[edit]

Hi! You forgot to delete the first file in this discussion. Also, the user keeps doing the same thing as you can see. I think you can just speedy delete them, and even block the user because he/she is here only for these kind of activities. Regards.--Nanahuatl (talk) 07:23, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I gave them a final warning but they haven't made any infractions since July 25. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 21:45, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"Contested by Admins"[edit]

I would point out that I do not see policy or guidelines on FBMD at the discussion you linked. The situation they are discussing is not pertinent to the image which started our discussion. I see one newer admin, one older admin and a user discussing something. That's not policy. That's not a hot discussion. Please feel free to start one, but what you give as a reason is very thin and not "hot." I truly doubt you would get a consensus that we should Deletion Nomination every FBMD we speedy. That sort of thinking can gum up the works to where we'd never get copyright violations out of here. Cheers! Ellin Beltz (talk) 02:47, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You are assuming that it is policy to delete FBMD images on sight. It is not. Rather, there is no policy either way; COM:CSD was written before Facebook started tagging photos with FBMD. CSD says nothing about FBMD, so each admin is unfortunately left to interpret it their own way. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:52, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Also, we don't need to DR everything. {{No permission since}} works just as well as {{Copyvio}}, with the only difference that it is delayed one week. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:53, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I am wondering why you feel the need to explain the system at Commons to me? I told you there was no policy and that the "hot discussion" over there was not hot, nor changes the guidelines. Facebook copyrights every image uploaded to it. Please read their terms of service. I am aware of "no permission," "no license," and "no source". An image with FBMD, has a source, therefore they do not get sent to no source, if they have FBMD they are sourced to Facebook. However, I am not going to send every obvious FBMD to Deletion Nomination, especially for an uploader with obvious problems stating "own work" and things coming from social media or the internet. COM:PRP and all that. Any chance you could work through the backlog from last year instead of fussing about tags? Cheers!  !!!
I admit that in this case, I may have erred on the side of caution a bit too much, given the uploader's history. However, "Facebook copyrights every image uploaded to it." -> not true at all. Copyright remains with the Facebook user, who may be the Commons uploader or in contact with them. There is a difference between FBMD and an actual FB link: in the latter case we can see the identity of the FB user who posted the photo and make heuristic judgments about how likely they are to either be the same person as the Commons uploader or have authorized them to upload the image. With only FBMD we have nothing to go off of, so it helps to tread lightly. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:10, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Are Mexican logos copyrighted?[edit]

Are Mexican logos copyrighted? ItsJustdancefan (talk) 03:15, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

In every country, logos are almost always trademarked, but are only copyrighted if they are sufficiently complex. That threshold for complexity is known as the threshold of originality. Unfortunately we don't have a section on Mexico, but you can look at the US section to get an approximate feel for when logos are too simple to be copyrighted. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:22, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Revision deletion[edit]

Dear King of Hearts,

Please delete the revision uploaded by this user. These are the revisions:

After downloaded the files, the user uploaded the files again and again. So, revision deletion will be the best treatment for the actions.

Yours sincerely,
Anonymous user — Preceding unsigned comment was added by 114.125.249.152 (talk) 15:04, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Image Promotion[edit]
Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Lang Ranch Oakbrook North Ranch Thousand Oaks July 2021 005.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments
 Support Good quality. --XRay 04:03, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Lang Ranch Oakbrook North Ranch Thousand Oaks July 2021 006.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments
 Support Good quality. --XRay 04:03, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Lang Ranch Oakbrook North Ranch Thousand Oaks July 2021 007.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments
 Support Good quality. --Knopik-som 03:51, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Lang Ranch Oakbrook North Ranch Thousand Oaks July 2021 008.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments  Support Good quality.--Agnes Monkelbaan 04:21, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Lang Ranch Oakbrook North Ranch Thousand Oaks July 2021 HDR.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments
 Support Good quality. --Steindy 20:22, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

--QICbot (talk) 05:29, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Image Promotion[edit]
Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Lang Ranch Oakbrook North Ranch Thousand Oaks July 2021 001.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments Good quality --Michielverbeek 06:24, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Lang Ranch Oakbrook North Ranch Thousand Oaks July 2021 004.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments
 Support Good quality. --Tournasol7 06:45, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

--QICbot (talk) 05:25, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Image Promotion[edit]
Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Lang Ranch Oakbrook North Ranch Thousand Oaks July 2021 009.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments  Support Good quality.--Famberhorst 04:51, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

--QICbot (talk) 05:25, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Image Promotion[edit]
Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Lang Ranch Oakbrook North Ranch Thousand Oaks July 2021 010.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments
 Support Good quality. --Velvet 05:49, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

--QICbot (talk) 05:36, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Revoke rights[edit]

I would say it is totally nonsense. Per Commons:Rollback#Revocation of rollback permission: Users misusing the rollback tool to revert constructive edits may have their rollback permission revoked. The same applies for its use for edit warring or content disputes. I don't have any sign of misusing the rollback tools to revert non-vandalism edits. So, I don't think I fulfill the standard of revocation of the rights. --A1Cafel (talk) 02:20, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Similar situation for Commons:File mover--A1Cafel (talk) 02:22, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I am simply implementing an action that De728631 apparently forgot to take. So you will need to appeal to him. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:23, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, yes. I did forget to implement that, so thank you for acting on my behalf. De728631 (talk) 11:12, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Image Promotion[edit]
Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Lang Ranch Oakbrook North Ranch Thousand Oaks July 2021 002.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments  Support Good quality -- Johann Jaritz 03:35, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Lang Ranch Oakbrook North Ranch Thousand Oaks July 2021 003.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments  Support Good quality -- Johann Jaritz 03:35, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Lang Ranch Oakbrook North Ranch Thousand Oaks July 2021 011.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments
 Support Good quality. --Knopik-som 05:15, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Lang Ranch Oakbrook North Ranch Thousand Oaks July 2021 012.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments Good quality --Llez 05:42, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Lang Ranch Oakbrook North Ranch Thousand Oaks July 2021 013.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments Good quality --Llez 05:42, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

--QICbot (talk) 05:29, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Photos by user LuAmHenn[edit]

I see that you are very optimistic about this user getting a permission from a professional photographer to upload their work under CC licensing. :-)

This user so far has not reacted to any comments on their Wikimedia or Wikipedia user pages but has instead re-uploaded pictures that were already speedy deleted yesterday, plus uploaded further pictures that I am sure are also copyrighted. --217.239.3.72 06:59, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Just FYI, there have now been lengthy discussions and explanations with lots of good will on the German Wikipedia user page of this user, and while pretending to be cooperative, he is actually totally immune to advice and starts splitting hairs over side issues, all the while uploading more images with questionable copyright. I cannot actually find this one on the company website, but nobody is going to make me believe that an 18-year-old company intern took such a professional product photo.
For yesterday's copyright violations, I was perfectly willing to assume a simple lack of information, but now, I must admit that my supply of AGF is really used up. --217.239.3.72 14:19, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
1) Speedy deletions are for obvious copyright violations. It should not be necessary to look at a Wikipedia in another language to figure out what's going on. 2) I'm not suggesting that the uploader took the photo himself. However, it is possible he is uploading these photos as part of his job (note that disclosure is not required on Commons), and a permission statement from the company may be forthcoming. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 16:18, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Well, we'll have to agree to disagree on our assessment of how obvious these copyright violations were. I thought they were extremely obvious, uploaded as "own work" but with the name and copyright statement of a totally different person in the Exif data.
Not sure how a permission statement from the company would help. To the best of my legal understanding, we need a permission statement from the photographer, not from the company. --217.239.3.72 23:03, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Not if the photographer is an employee. All of that can only be sorted out over VRTS - and it is rather impolite to delete their images before they've had the chance to do that. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:04, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Doubt[edit]

Hi King of Hearts. What do you mean by "wrong venue" in this deletion request? --Lojwe (talk) 21:38, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Any category requests for deletion, renaming, etc. should be done at COM:CFD. Please read the instructions there and make a new nomination accordingly. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 21:44, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

FP Promotion[edit]

 ★ This image has been promoted to Featured picture! ★

The image File:Liberty Science Center Jersey City October 2020 panorama 1.jpg, that you nominated on Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Liberty Science Center Jersey City October 2020 panorama 1.jpg has been promoted. Thank you for your contribution. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so.

/FPCBot (talk) 13:02, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion of the file "Chornomorets odesa logo uk.jpg" from Wikimedia Commons[edit]

Hi, why did you delete file "Chornomorets odesa logo uk.jpg" from Wikimedia Commons? It is in my opinion the same case as for example file "File:FC Bayern München logo (2017).svg" uploaded to Wikimedia. Or do you see it like another case? Web-wiki-warrior (talk) 17:15, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The soccer ball graphic is complex, whereas the Bayern Munich logo is just a blue and white repeated pattern from the flag of Bavaria. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 17:18, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Good, but in my opinion it is stupid that every language wikipedia site about the football club "Chornomorets Odesa" has to upload this picture in its Wikipedia language area. So there are at least 30 (!) different files with the same logo on Wikipedia instead of just one picture on Wikimedia. Is it possible to find a solution to fix the case? Web-wiki-warrior (talk) 17:34, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That is unfortunate, but Commons accepts only freely licensed images. If you have any proposals feel free to suggest them on COM:VPP. Note that some Wikipedias will have no image at all, as they ban fair-use images completely. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 17:38, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
FYI: The logo I uploaded on Wikimedia hosted on the official page of FC Chornomorets. The site provides following information about using of the photos/grafics from the site: The use of information, photos and video materials in any form is allowed only with a link to the official website of the football club "Chornomorets". So, a link to the http://chernomorets.odessa.ua has to be enough to use the logo on Wikimedia. Web-wiki-warrior (talk) 17:43, 19 August 2021 (UTC).[reply]
This only mentions "use", which is ambiguous. Is commercial use allowed? What about derivatives? This is why CC licenses exist, to standardize the text so there is no legal ambiguity. You can contact them to see if they are willing to release this logo in accordance with COM:VRT. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 17:47, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
>Is commercial use allowed?
Is using on Wikimedia a case of commercial using?
>What about derivatives?
What does it mean ... "derivatives"? Web-wiki-warrior (talk) 17:53, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Even if we have no intention of using an image commercially, we require all images to meet the definition of Free Cultural Work, which includes commercial use. Wikimedia Commons is not just for Wikipedia and other Wikimedia projects, but a general repository for anyone on the Internet to use as they please. "Derivatives" refers to the right to make and publish a modified version of the image without permission of the copyright holder. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 17:56, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Copyvio[edit]

Hello King of Hearts, excuse me, but what is this? You can't be serious about not speedy deleting that file. How much clearer can a copyright holder make it than say "Abdruck und Veroeffentlichung nur gegen Honorar und Belegexemplar" (Reprint and publication only for payment and a specimen copy)? Even with an OTRS permission, how do you see any chance whatsoever of a CC licensing? --87.150.13.119 07:26, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You cannot reasonably expect people to read German. Also, what's found in the EXIF is not definitive, and could just be a default setting by the photographer regardless of their actual intention regarding this specific image. I found no prior publication of the photo at this resolution, increasing the chance that this is authorized and an OTRS permission could be forthcoming. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 14:24, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I can certainly expect people to read and understand the © symbol and to recognize contact data when they see it. Any photographer who goes to the length of putting all their contact data and the © symbol in the metadata knows exactly what they are doing. That's not the default setting of any camera.
As far as the German goes, I must admit that I am slightly surprised you still insist on hoping for a CC licensing on this picture even after I translated it for you. How much clearer can a photographer make it that he wants to get paid for his work?
If there ever was an obvious case for speedy delete, this is it. --87.150.13.119 15:02, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
We accept many VRTS permissions for photos that say "© All Rights Reserved" in the metadata. The presence of such metadata does not preclude a valid VRTS ticket from coming in. All files licensed under a CC license are copyrighted, and many of our in-house contributors put a © in the metadata to let reusers know that their images are not in the public domain. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 15:12, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Excuse me, but are you seriously still insisting that there might be a permission coming? This photographer has made it absolutely clear that he wants to be paid for his work. Has Commons paid that fee before publishing the photo? --87.150.13.119 15:25, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
In speedy deletions, it's a probabilistic assessment, and high-resolution images with full EXIF that have not appeared elsewhere on the Internet at that quality are rather likely to be authorized. In the worst case, the image will be deleted in a week if no permission email comes. Why are you so insistent on deleting it now? -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 15:28, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Why? You are perfectly right, I have no reason to butt in. What do I care if Commons violates copyright of people I don't even know. Let Commons be sued for it, that's no business of mine. I am certainly not going to pay the fine.
Let me turn the question around: What's the point in having a speedy delete procedure at all if it's not applied in cases as obvious as this one? What do you expect a photographer to do to make his intentions clear more than this one has done? --87.150.13.119 17:22, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The WMF won't be sued because of DMCA safe harbor protection. We admins are not part of the WMF, so any actions we take are solely in a volunteer capacity. The point of a speedy procedure is primarily to quickly eliminate photos that were obviously grabbed from the Internet. The desire to remove copyvios quickly must be balanced against the demoralizing effect it has on users when they upload content they do have authorization for and it gets speedily deleted. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 17:32, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I see that you have balanced that further up on this page too in the same way, in another fairly obvious case of a professional product photo. It seems more important to you to be "polite" toward those kinds of SPA users (who are never going to do anything on Wikipedia except for this one article) than to protect the copyright holders in their rights. O.k., never mind. --87.150.13.119 21:11, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
And what's wrong if the only thing they do is contribute one portrait? Professional photographers do often agree to license their photos under a CC license; I have handled many such permissions as a VRTS agent. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 21:19, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Look, you spoke of not being demoralizing or - farther up on this page - of not being impolite toward these users. What for, if the price is disregard of the rights of others? These users are SPAs who produce one article they are possibly even paid for to do, and they will never show up on Wikipedia again. These are not promising new contributors who need to be encouraged and will work to expand Wikipedia. --87.150.13.119 22:15, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The fundamental principle is "innocent until proven guilty". When in doubt, don't speedy delete, but give time for the truth to come out. Only when sufficient time has elapsed, and enough opportunity given to the uploader or others to rectify the issue, can an image be deleted per COM:PCP. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:22, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
And there is a fundamental difference between Commons and Wikipedia. On Wikipedia, we don't want edits that try to puff up their subject in violation of w:WP:NPOV, but on Commons, we want to have flattering images of subjects. A w:WP:COI editor is usually a net negative on Wikipedia, but a net positive on Commons. There is a reason why our paid editing policy exception exists. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:28, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
(talk page stalker) No-permission tags are actually a form of speedy deletion, or at least ‘expedited’; if the licence hasn’t been sorted out by the end of the brief waiting period, no further discussion is required for an admin to act. Regarding © notices &c. in metadata, quite a few people put such things into their camera’s boilerplate or their photo-management software defaults, so they’re not conclusive evidence of the creator’s intent WRT any specific image. (Certainly enough to invoke COM:PRP, though.)—Odysseus1479 (talk) 19:07, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Excuse me, this is quite obviously a professional photographer who makes it perfectly clear that he wants money for his work. I fail to see what's "not conclusive" about such a totally clear case. But it has all been said now, so never mind. --87.150.13.119 21:11, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Cristina[edit]

Hi. About this, evem if the uploader has authorization from the subject, the subject itself is not the copyright holder, but the photographer. I'm a VRT agent and I've attendant the case before. Besides, it's quite obvious that this file was 2 years ago. Please take care when you undo editions in the future. Regards. --Ganímedes (talk) 20:27, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Ganímedes: Yes, the subject can't issue a permission. But the subject is likely to know who the photographer is and might be able to get a free release from them. A lot of VRT tickets that we accept originate from the subject, and we ultimately accept them after a back-and-forth chain of emails to get permission from the photographer. Being the subject drastically decreases the chances of a copyvio, thus making "no permission" a much better option than speedy. If you have a ticket that shows that we've already given them a chance to secure a free license release, please provide the ticket number. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 20:42, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Ticket it's in Spanish queue. File has no EXIF; the subject complan because file is using as vandalism; the source of the file is 2019 and obviously the subject can't be the author, so is not the copyright holder. Even if that it's true, we need authentication of the account before to assume it's uploaded with permission. I can look for the ticket number, if you wish. --Ganímedes (talk) 20:47, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Appreciate it, I'd like to see the context. I am not assuming anything, just giving them one week to come up with the permission rather than assuming that it is so obviously unauthorized that we shouldn't even give them a chance. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 20:52, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I will email you because this can't wait for a week, and it's a delicated matter. I though that I could get some credibility been an old and prolific agent, but apparently my word means nothing. Regards. --Ganímedes (talk) 20:56, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I trust you, so I assume you have a good reason for why it can't wait a week (I've deleted it), feel free to take your time with the email. Apologies if I misunderstood you, but I did not get a sense of urgency from your previous comments. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 21:03, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for deletion of File:BAESCHLIN Bouquet de pivoines.jpg[edit]

Hi,

I noticed you quickly deleted this file after my notification of Copyvio. Thanks.

I wonder which is the best template to use when I find a painting photograph, which claims CC-by the photograph, but represents a painting from a living painter, or painter dead after 1950 : {{Delete}}, {{Copyvio}} or {{Speedy}} ?

I you check, you'll see that I tried to notify a bunch of them, but did not know the best way to do it... --Hsarrazin (talk) 19:59, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

My personal preference is to open a DR i.e. {{Delete}} for older works, as there might be reasons for being PD that could be overlooked in a speedy process. The further back you go from 1990 as the creation date, the riskier speedy deletion gets. One other benefit of DRs is that it allows batch nominations, which saves effort for everyone. The nominator doesn't have to tag the files for deletion individually, and there's no risk that the files get handled differently because different admins happened to come across the requests. However, I don't recommend batching more than 10-20 files together in one nomination, which can make it unwieldy especially if there are reasons to keep only some images and delete others. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 20:37, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
OK, thanks ! I asked because I found copyvio pics of paintings that were not processed, though they were proposed for deletion en 2020, and nobody commented on them... --Hsarrazin (talk) 14:07, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It's funny[edit]

I have learned that add templates to photos in order to motivate administrators is vandalism. It's funny. You are not doing anything when the photos infringe copyright, but if somebody tries get your attention, you whintervene. --Choojvdoopie (talk) 16:54, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

File:Deborah Jin (8116054200) (cropped).jpg[edit]

Hello! Delete also this file as a derivative work of Deborah Jin (8116054200).jpg. --INS Pirat (talk) 11:11, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 14:52, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

FP Promotion[edit]

 ★ This image has been promoted to Featured picture! ★

The image File:Kearny Generating Station September 2020 BW.jpg, that you nominated on Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Kearny Generating Station September 2020 BW.jpg has been promoted. Thank you for your contribution. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so.

/FPCBot (talk) 13:01, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Image Promotion[edit]
Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Higbee Beach Cape May October 2020 004.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments Good quality. --XRay 03:47, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Higbee Beach Cape May October 2020 001.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments
 Support Good quality. --Steindy 23:38, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Higbee Beach Cape May October 2020 002.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments
 Support Good quality. --Steindy 23:38, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

--QICbot (talk) 05:35, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Photo question[edit]

There is a sold listing on Heritage Auctions for a couple of photos of coaches Bobby Knight and Bear Bryant: https://sports.ha.com/itm/football/bobby-knight-and-bear-bryant-original-photographs-lot-of-2/a/152111-42299.s?ic4=GalleryView-ShortDescription-071515. On the back, they are labeled as being taken by Malcom W. Emmons. They do not have a date on the front or back, and as the photo of Bear Bryant shows, than one was taken and/or published in 1977 (the one with Knight does not have a date on it). Aside from a "please credit me" notice, there is not a real copyright notice anywhere on these. Would these photos (at least of Bryant) be OK to upload onto Commons? Thanks for your time. StrangeloveFan101 (talk) 01:52, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Replied on COM:VPC. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:04, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Using Google Images, the only evidence I could find to see that it was published was this reproduction print listed on eBay: https://www.ebay.com/itm/191664196990. It's simply listed as being a 1977 photo here. Zero results came back using TinEye. From what I can tell, it seems like it was published in this year. That should make this Public Domain with this tag. StrangeloveFan101 (talk) 15:45, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Image Promotion[edit]
Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Lower Manhattan from Jersey City December 2017 003.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments  Support Good quality.--Agnes Monkelbaan 04:20, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

--QICbot (talk) 05:30, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Image Promotion[edit]
Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Second Beach Olympic June 2018 001.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments
 Support Good quality. --Steindy 00:13, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Second Beach Olympic June 2018 002.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments
 Support Good quality. --Steindy 00:13, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Second Beach Olympic June 2018 003.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments
 Support Good quality. --Steindy 00:13, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Second Beach Olympic June 2018 005.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments
 Support Good quality. --Steindy 00:13, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Second Beach Olympic June 2018 010.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments Gorgeous. -- Ikan Kekek 23:21, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
 Support Good quality. --Steindy 00:13, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

--QICbot (talk) 05:37, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

File:Khushi Mukherjee.jpg[edit]

It looks like author has failed to confirm the ownership of File:Khushi Mukherjee.jpg. Please have a look. Thank you. Run n Fly (talk) 11:55, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Image Promotion[edit]
Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Second Beach Olympic June 2018 009.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments  Support Good quality -- Johann Jaritz 04:32, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Second Beach Olympic June 2018 004.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments  Support Good quality.--Agnes Monkelbaan 04:22, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Second Beach Olympic June 2018 006.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments
 Support Good quality. --Halavar 21:26, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Second Beach Olympic June 2018 007.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments
 Support Good quality. --Steindy 09:22, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Second Beach Olympic June 2018 008.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments
 Support Good quality. --Steindy 09:22, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

--QICbot (talk) 05:33, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Image to restore[edit]

I have made some research. File:Meeting with Benedict XVI on 10 August 2019 (cropped).jpg, which you deleted after I nominated it for copyvio, is derived from File:Meeting with Benedict XVI on 10 August 2019.jpg which is under CC 4.0. Veverve (talk) 19:30, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 19:47, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Image Promotion[edit]
Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Lower Manhattan from Jersey City December 2017 001.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments Good quality --Llez 05:46, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Lower Manhattan from Jersey City December 2017 002.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments Good quality --Llez 05:46, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

--QICbot (talk) 05:30, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi[edit]

Hi admin. Is this file eligible for copyright protection? ⁂๖ۣۜJon ♥ ๖ۣۜDaenerys໖ 15:56, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It's almost certainly below COM:TOO US, but we don't have a section on Vietnam. I don't know any more than you do on copyright in Vietnam so just use your best judgment. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 18:13, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Teşvikiye Mosque picture deletion[edit]

Hi,

I have added 2 pictures to the article "Teşvikiye Mosque", but they have been deleted due to copyright violation. I know that I have added the coyright to the image stating that it belong to the Culture and Tourism Ministry of Turkey. Even though every image of the Ministry is free to use without coyright violation, I have put the ministry into the image. May I know the reason why these files were deleted? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Slh7477 (talk • contribs) 19:10, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Any material you find on the internet is by default copyrighted, unless explicitly marked as public domain or under a free license. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:33, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

FP Promotion[edit]

 ★ This image has been promoted to Featured picture! ★

The image File:Second Beach Olympic June 2018 008.jpg, that you nominated on Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Second Beach Olympic June 2018 008.jpg has been promoted. Thank you for your contribution. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so.

/FPCBot (talk) 13:02, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Review[edit]

Hi. Can you review this photo? Thanks! ⁂๖ۣۜJon ♥ ๖ۣۜDaenerys໖ 01:39, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:00, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:King_of_Hearts/Archive/2021/Q3&oldid=595233999"