User talk:Martin H./Archive 25

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


Archive Note

Page archived on November 6, see the archive. --Martin H. (talk) 11:02, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Milena Apostolaki.jpg

Dear Martin,

If you see this discussion, do you think I can make an manuaal upload? I mean, isn't it ridiculous just to pick one picture out of many pictures because the user is for one picture one the blacklist? What do you think? I think this picture is o.k. Beste regards, Devil's Revenge (talk) 16:40, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

I cant say if that photo is ok or not. Maybe ask them and have their answer if they know what they do and if that photo is indeed their photo. --Martin H. (talk) 16:43, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
Do you mean by "them" the Greek lady? The fact is if this picture is not clean (or if that is not clear) the other from here pictures have also to be removed in my opinion. And that will give a big dammage to many Greek political artikels. You can't pick one picture out of a range... Devil's Revenge (talk) 16:50, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
Then: maybe asking her is a good idea. --Martin H. (talk) 16:53, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
O.k. Martin, I will write here an email. Maybe, because my impression is that it a young political interested Greek student is she will upload her (interesting) pictures direct to Commons. That seem me a much better idea. Otherwise if we don't get a reaction I am afraid we have te delete all her pictures... I let you know her answer. Devil's Revenge (talk) 17:02, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
I also send also a mail on here Flickr account Martin, till now no answer. I think we must give it one week and otherwise delete all the pictures. Do you agree? Best regards, Devil's Revenge (talk) 08:39, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
I hope you will receive an answer. --Martin H. (talk) 22:12, 9 November 2011 (UTC)


I got this answer: no problem Mxxxxx! Use it..... :))
I wrote this answer:
Thanks Joanna,

But we want to be sure you made them by yourself. That is because we give them for free use, also commercial. Did you make all that pictures by yourself?

Best regards, Mxxxxx.
Devil's Revenge (talk) 17:25, 12 November 2011 (UTC)


Am tired of this guy, he dedicate to delet files. Is something we can do to put him out from administration ? --Victor (talk) 18:27, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Please...

Take a look of this thanks --Ezarateesteban 17:18, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Its archived. To make it short: I dont care. --Martin H. (talk) 20:26, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Pictures

Hi Took some time to arrange the letter from the right department, showing I have the right to use them in all possible ways... ( the Uganda minerals maps ) I will scan and send... but where ? All the best --Mobergefinance (talk) 20:33, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

See Commons:OTRS. --Martin H. (talk) 22:11, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Do you understand about sources?

  • What your Nikbot can not understand if used only very old photos of 19 centurie (being public and free use)?Sergeispb-10 (talk)

hola

esas imagenes son mias, las saque yo, no se porque aparecen en esas páginas, pero se nota que son recopilaciones de fans que roban fotos que sacan otros para agregarlas a sus blogs y paginas como pasa con las paginas de espectaculos sacan las fotos que sacan otroos. saludos. eric --Eric47 (talk) 21:25, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Provide the true information for your uploads. For example File:Maglietti evento.jpg is obviously copied from facebook. You copied it from facebook. Also upload the full quality, the quality and size at maglietti-diosa.blogspot.com is better - you copied from them. Provide true information for all files. --Martin H. (talk) 21:26, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

hola martin soy eric, las fotos son mias ya le dije a otro qyue me pregunto, roy, que lo eran, justamente, son de faccebook porqie las fotos son mias las guarde y las subi aca para aportar mis fotos con famosos, las fotos son de diferentes eventos con famosos.

Estan recortadas para no colocar mi imagen o la de mis amigos o de otras personas que no conocia y agregarlas en la pagina de wikipedia de ese famoso

si mis imagenes son retiradas para agregarlas a blogs de otras personas. ¿que culpa tengo yo? blogs o si te fijas en el de ivana palliotti son unas cuantas recopilaciones de revistas, fotos de agencia, books, y fotos que son exclusivas por asi decirlo, no creo que puedas tomar eso asi. porque ahora si quiero hago lo mismo, por eje,plo, y saco imagenes de por ejemplo wikipedia y las tomo como propias y me hago ub blog y digo que son mias.. es eso lo que hacen

File:Pestaña pitra.jpg from http://maglietti-diosa.blogspot.com/2010/12/eventos-bardahl-fotos-de-la-pagina.html is originally from https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?pid=4875591&id=205279455049 and Copyright by Bardahl Argentina. Stop saying the untruth. Say the truth or go, but stop chatting around with such lame excusion. We just prevented the last copyviouploader User:Salyale from vandalizing the project, and now you succeed him :( --Martin H. (talk) 21:44, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

intente traducirlo, no entiendo ingles. ya te dije que son mias si no lo entendes. ya es otra cosa.

Hilfe bei möglichen Urheberrechtsverletzungen

Hi, ich hätte gerne einen Rat. Ich hab mich erinnert, wie du erwähntest, dass Facebook Bilder auf 720px verkleinert. Auf Wikipedia wurde Bhupen Hazarika u.a. wegen copyvios gesperrt. Dabei bin ich über die professionellen Bilder von Donvikro (talk · contributions · Statistics) gestolpert, wobei einige auf 720px sind und alle außer diesem Testbild, das nicht zu den andern passt, plump mit Photoshop nachbearbeitet wurden, um den Namen des Nutzers einzufügen. Der Nutzer hat bereits mind. 1 copyvio von panoramio.com Leider hab ich keine Links zu möglichen Quellbildern, was bei FB schwer wäre. Soll ich trotzdem ein DR starten? Hekerui (talk) 22:15, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Schwerer Fall, muss nicht immer facebook sein, in den meißten Fällen ist es das aber. Wenn man vermutet, dass es von Facebook ist, muss man sich auf die Suche machen, händisch. Ich finde da bestehen ein paar Verdachtsmomente, dass der Benutzer die Bilder Anderer mit manipulierten EXIF-Daten und Wasserzeichen versieht. --Martin H. (talk) 22:27, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

"No source"-Markierungen

Hallo Martin!

Meine Arbeitsschwerpunkte auf Commons haben sich in letzter Zeit verlagert. Ich habe deshalb nur die "alten" Regularien für das Setzen von sog. "no source"-Tags im Kopf, die da lauten, dass bei einem Fehlen valider Quellen solcher gesetzt werden soll. Soweit so gut. Letztens wurden Aktionen dieser Art meinerseits zurückgesetzt, ohne dass eine ausreichende Begründung angegeben wurde (kein Kuiper-Fall). Es geht um folgende Dateien: [1], [2], [3]. Gelten folgende Quellenangaben mittlerweile als ausreichend? Gruß, High Contrast (talk) 00:21, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Eine ganze Behörde als Quelle zu bezeichnen ist nicht Zielführend. Quelle ist eine Publikation. Zumal eine derart schlechte Quellenangabe Tür und Tor öffnet, dem Projekt Dateien aus der Quelle die nicht frei sind oder Dateien die garnicht von behaupteter Quelle stammen unterzujubeln. Der betroffene Benutzer ist sehr wohl in der Lage Quellen zu zitieren, verwunderlich, dass er dieses Tun auf Commons derart missachtet. Ich gehe mit dem no source d'accord. --Martin H. (talk) 00:28, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
Demnach scheint sich nichts geändert zu haben. Warum will dieser Trycatch krampfhaft an seiner "source given"-These festhalten? Weiß er etwas, was andere nicht wissen? --High Contrast (talk) 00:37, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
Hallo! Offenbar ergibt sich im Löschantrag zur besagten Datei ein anderer Konsens. Hat sich auch die "Beweispflicht" des Hochladenden verändert? In diesem LA wird das angesprochen, in einer recht farbigen Wortwahl des Antragstellers. --High Contrast (talk) 15:17, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

User talk:Amazingloong

This user has made another unblock request. I was minded to grant it at first given the time since the block and apparent good standing on another project and AGF that past problems will not be repeated. However the blanking of his discussion with you in respect of his last request gives me pause. What do you think? WJBscribe (talk) 13:06, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

User pulled out all the stops to upload unfree files, or better a mixture of self-created and unfree files. I not want to see him on Commons, but I not care if he comes back or not. --Martin H. (talk) 14:03, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

idiot

why you deleted image of Lavrentiy Son? --Алый Король (talk) 15:03, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

photograph uploaded this image specially for wiki after my request, why you are so stupid to ask me before deleting? --Алый Король (talk) 15:05, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
Is it the photographer who operates the flickr account and who voluntarily released this under a license that allows anyone to reuse this photo for commercial purposes? (Note: Anyone, worldwide, not just "for wiki) Or is it someone else who controlls the flickr account and is violating the photographers interests - releasing intelectual property and waiving economic rights? --Martin H. (talk) 15:10, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
yes, it is the photographer who operates the flickr account and who voluntarily released this under a license that allows anyone to reuse this photo for commercial purposes. He is a good friend of mine and actually he had already released a bunch of photos under CC (if you are not blind to see) --Алый Король (talk) 15:12, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
ahahah, specially for you, Russian-English lesson. here Репортаж Ивана Беседина. in Englisg it means: "report by Ivan Besedin" --Алый Король (talk) 15:16, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
Ok, I will restore it. --Martin H. (talk) 15:13, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
and how about reviewing this image? or I should wait for another admin who will appreciate my contribution and delete this image one more time? --Алый Король (talk) 15:26, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
I reverted my mistake and case closed. With reference to the section title im not open for any communication with you. --Martin H. (talk) 15:33, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Unprotection

Hi. Could you please unprotect these two files File:Flag of Croatia.svg and File:Coat of arms of Croatia.svg, for uploading a new versions harmonised with thw new graphical standards? Thnx in advance--Ex13 (talk) 17:38, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Ask the admin who protected it or ask at COM:AN/P. --Martin H. (talk) 17:52, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Image deletion

Hi there, I am aware theat you recently deleted some images my page. May I know why ? I am sure I adheared to the guidelines and were not coppyright infringed. Thanks :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yeosl (talk • contribs) 13:03, November 13, 2011‎ (UTC)

File:HavanaMontage.png

Sorry for the bad image in the new version of File:HavanaMontage.png - I have replaced it with a free image from Commons (via Flickr) and updated the image here. Ruhrfisch (talk) 13:48, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Sehr gut, danke. --Martin H. (talk) 18:19, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Por que Borras mis fotos?

Que motivo tuvistes para borrar todas mis fotos,muchas de las de ahi son editadas por mi,no entiendo por que me las tenias que borrar. Scheibe

Read File:Licensing_tutorial_es.svg. Puedas subir trabajos creados completamente por ti mismo. You must not steal files from the internet as you did. --Martin H. (talk) 20:09, 13 November 2011 (U

RESPETA


Igual las volvere a Editar con mi Propio sello

CU

Concerning this[4] Can you please make a determination based on conduct?--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 23:32, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

No. --Martin H. (talk) 23:35, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Why did you delete my uploaded file http://et.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heroes_of_Newerth

Why did you delete my uploaded file, I'm creating a wiki article for school. the file name was: shot0005.jpg http://et.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heroes_of_Newerth

To upload a screenshot of software to Wikimedia Commons the software must have been published under a free license. See Commons:Licensing and Commons:Screenshots and.... well, just read the first steps. --Martin H. (talk) 21:30, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

The game is free to play, the software is free

The game is free to play but the software still has copyright and the copyright holder not gave you permission to make screenshots and distribute them. Thats free like in free beer, but not free. See en:Gratis versus libre. --Martin H. (talk) 21:40, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm really interested, did I upload it correctly now?

You at least uploaded it with correct information. But that doesnt matter, you CANT upload it here. This project is a free content only project, we not host screenshots of games that are not free software. --Martin H. (talk) 22:11, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Eliminacion de fotos

Quiero saber ¿por qué elimino tadas las fotos que he puesto aca?, son de mi completa autoria y las he subido con libre licencia, exijo una explicacion de por qué hace esto. Barto920203 (talk) 02:26, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

see your talkpage. Thats a lot of stolen photos, isnt it? Why do you upload such files? explicacion? --Martin H. (talk) 18:26, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
Ok, entiendo el asunto de algunas imagenes, pero, por ejemplo, File:Centro Comercial Centro Mayor.JPG sí es una fotografía de mi autoría, y pido que se reponga ya que el artículo relacionado con este centro comercial se ha visto afectado. --Barto920203 (talk) 03:10, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Re: Deletion requests

I doubt if you could check the notability of the festival, because the newspaper articles and television events were in Russian. Maybe it would be better if you inspect the notability more precisely, asking people from Yaroslavl region of Russia about all the Russian-speaking media. Also, Commons:Galleries does not state any reason to delete this gallery, neither does Commons:Deletion policy. In case you see any offset from COM:NPOV, any text that «constitute vandalism, attack or deliberate provocation», I kindly ask you to edit the gallery. Thank you.--PereslavlFoto (talk) 20:33, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Don't mind talkback template, I will check this page from time to time.--PereslavlFoto (talk) 20:34, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

I think you not read COM:NPOV correctly. It says "and in any event" and refers to attack etc. In any event you must stay neutral. This means: Commons is not interested in your POV essay like "Каждому ясно, какие сильные эмоции вызывает гадкое[...]".
I searched Wikipedia and I found nothing. Nothing about the 2011 event, nothing about the event. On Commons we not even have a gallery for the location of the event, the museum. So: dissolve the gallery of the particular event and go back to the location (the museum), create a gallery for the museum and include a section with one or two files related to the particular event. Thats more then enough to describe this event. --Martin H. (talk) 20:42, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
I cannot explain the situation with other Wikipedias; they hardly cover even all the spaceships of Russia... I also could not find the rule setting "location galleries" as "mother galleries" for any other themes. This very event stayed not only in the museum, but in some other locations of the town, because the festivals usually take about two weeks of different events.--PereslavlFoto (talk) 20:54, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
Many thanks for the clear reference about mosquitoes! I am editing this fragment now, for the sake of those who likes to be bited by midges :-).--PereslavlFoto (talk) 20:54, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
Still I cannot understand why the name of «nasty insect» for midges can «constitute vandalism, attack or deliberate provocation». Attack on mosquitoes? Provocation agains mosquitoes?--PereslavlFoto (talk) 20:58, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
The POV is your description of the work. Say: This is work xy. And thats it. All other description is your personal opinion and not required in the file description nor anywhere else on the project. --Martin H. (talk) 21:01, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
Yet it does not «constitute vandalism, attack or deliberate provocation». Full descriptions are not required but possible, while minimal and about-empty descriptions are none better.--PereslavlFoto (talk) 21:03, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
You still not read COM:NPOV#Text correctly. «constitute vandalism, attack or deliberate provocation» is the SECOND part of that sentence, the first part is neutrality. And in any case: Im not interested to discuss this here with you. I said my opinion and thats something im allowed to do. --Martin H. (talk) 21:06, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
As I can understand, neutrality is descripted as absence of «constitute vandalism, attack or deliberate provocation». This means, neutrality of description has to provide the description free from bias, to stay objective. If the picture is about the emotion, and the emotion is about the cloud of hungry mosquitoes, how can this emotional picture be descripted? That is why I used the words «nasty insect» for them. Others think this is biased, and now I changed the description. Still I want to study this a bit better to avoid failure in future. Thanks.--PereslavlFoto (talk) 21:28, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
I think that your opinion will change now, when the text about midges is neutral.--PereslavlFoto (talk) 21:28, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Let me ask you about more details in POV. There are the descriptions that look like personal opinion and are not required. Here are the samples: Великие святые, славного русского писателя, замечательный образец, замечательный виолончелист (etc.), значителен принос + национално историческо значение, важнейший источник, Most important, most valuable, valuable insight, especially valuable. May they stay here?--PereslavlFoto (talk) 21:20, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

See above. I said my opinion on your gallery, this not means that I must have an opinion for all other content nor does this mean that I must share my opinion on all other content with you. If you want to discuss something discuss with the project, im not your exclusice discussion partner on this issue. --Martin H. (talk) 21:24, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
Others don't care.--PereslavlFoto (talk) 21:29, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Hi Martin H.;

I have installed a few visual file from official web site Presidency of the Republic of Turkey and you, for these pictures, "Deletion Candidate" as I saw that you are displaying. Firs of all,This visual files with the permission of the President of Corporate Communications Department and Wikipedia "Copyrights and Licensing Regulation" is in conformity with the relevant provisions would like to specify. In addition, the files that you have specified, Corporate Communications Department of the Presidency of the Republic of Turkey due to the Public Domain e-mail response dated 31 October 2011 were taken and used with permission required.

To your Information.

1) my talkpage is not a deletion discussion 2) forward written permission to OTRS. --Martin H. (talk) 22:37, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

picture G Dogg (Iassen Ivanov)

Dear Martin H.,

The file I am trying to upload and you keep deleting is owned by my husband Iassen Ivanov (G Dogg) who passed away 12.11.2011 (5 days ago). I am his heir-by-law. I chose the wrong license from the drop down menu the first time I uploaded the file and probably that is why you keep deleting the picture. You can see the same picture circulating freely in many online media in Bulgaria and on his facebook page as well. You can contact me at katyamarin@gmail.com for further details.

My deepest condolences. The copyright belongs to the photographer. Its good that you can see it on many pages like facebook, but that not makes it free to reuse and therefore not free enough for our project. Commons:Licensing. The only chance is to upload it with correct author and source information and to provide written permission from the photographer folowing the procedure described in Commons:OTRS. --Martin H. (talk) 20:50, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Thank you Martin. I talked to the photographer. He has not uploaded this image on the internet. What should we do in this case if we want to use it for my husband's wikipedia.bg page. What will be the simplest procedure?

Jerry Dandridge Novemberthread

Und ein Neuer: Special:Contributions/HIMYM. Gruß, Seewolf (talk) 17:20, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

File:Final Resolution 2011 logo.gif

Oh! Sorry but it's my 1st import and I wasn't understand the free-licence P.S I speak with you thinks Google Translation ([[User:Mdp ncr|Mdp]] [[User talk:Mdp ncr|ncr]] [[Special:Contributions/Mdp ncr|(c)]] (talk) 20:53, 18 November 2011 (UTC))

Fotos

Hola! las imagenes que me estas marcando son imagenes de cds mios, fotografías. --Antoniairiarte (talk) 08:29, 19 November 2011 (UTC) Si te fijas en "Metadata" esta la información de la cámara del celular!!!--Antoniairiarte (talk) 08:30, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Just because you own a copy of the CD does not mean that you are allowed to reproduce them and to distribute them for worldwide free commercial reuse. It doesnt matter that you photographerd your CD covers yourself. --Martin H. (talk) 08:32, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Aaah! Pensé que si, gracias. saludos.!!

Help

Hi there. I need some help. At File:Quaid passport burhan.jpg, I accidently made an edit while being logged in. However, due to some privacy reasons, I do not want to display my ID and want it removed/crossed-out/redacted from the revision history. Can you help me? Drspaz (talk) 08:41, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

You have an answer already on your talkpage. --Martin H. (talk) 08:44, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
But the admins over there are not active. Is there a way of having it done now?. Drspaz (talk) 08:48, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
They are active. --Martin H. (talk) 08:51, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
I can see what you mean, but the most active of them last edited 2 days ago. I want the request now.... Drspaz (talk) 08:54, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

File:Christoph Ignaz Abele.jpg

Hallo Martin, ich habe Fehler gemacht. Bitte File:Christoph Ignaz Abele.jpg in File:Thomas Abbt 01.jpg umbenennen. Danke vorab! --Karel K. (talk) 12:31, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Umbenannt. Der Urheber steht übrigens auf dem Bild. Und der Stecher als mitwirkender Urheber steht in der Quelle. --Martin H. (talk) 19:07, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

File tagging File:Osman Zolan.jpg

Hi Martin,

I have contacted the municipality and they told me that they have been licencing everything under CC. They told me that they don't have such specifications for this kind of things and therefore no doucments. What they told in the mail was I am free to upload the content. There fore, I changed the license as CC and removed the warninig.

Can you tell me what further I can do about that??

Azizkayihan (talk) 19:31, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

"CC" can mean many things. I think you mean Creative Commons licenses, there are many different Creative Commons license and we not know what licnse they mean. Do they allow modification? Do the allow commercial reuse? --Martin H. (talk) 19:33, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Category:Photos by Torsten Maiwald

In relation to Category:Photos by Torsten Maiwald do you realise that Category:Aviation photographers is being used to categorise some 150+ (and counting) aviation photographers whom have licenced their works for use on Commons. Removing Category:Aviation photographers from Germany has removed this photographer from a categorisation scheme which is not only sorting these photographers, but is also assisting many editors who are editing aviation articles on numerous projects to find photographs which they are able to upload. It may be ok to hide the category, but please don't remove the category without some actual discussion on why you feel it should be removed. Cheers, russavia (talk) 19:36, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Is there a way to remove such categories out of the topic categories? Thats maintenance, that photographer is some amateur and such information not belongs into the topic category tree. Please hide them all and please dont add such categories to the topic tree. --Martin H. (talk) 19:41, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
Martin, many of the photographers I have thus far obtained permission from are not amateurs, but are actually professional or semi-professional photographers. Just curious what makes you think that this one in particular is simply an amateur photographer? :) russavia (talk) 19:46, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
No source that suggest that he is notable in this field and that we must have a topic category. Either hes a source or a user (with someone else uploading on his behalf). But not a topic. I not piced this one because of that person, I picked this one in the recent files. I wasnt aware that you created such tons of categories in topic tree. --Martin H. (talk) 19:51, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

TexasDiscipulus2

Hey MartinH! I took a look at his photos. The UH digital library does rank them as public domain. So...

  • File:Fire Station 54.jpg <-- Here is an example of a relabeled photo. A quote from the page stating the terms of use in English, and a sentence in Spanish which states "The page says that the image is in the public domain" (Spanish is the most common minority language in the City of Houston and in many communities in Texas and the United States)

How is that? I would like to tell him that he needs to include this phrase in any PD photos he uploads from the UH Digital library WhisperToMe (talk) 04:01, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

I fully agree, I did the same at File:Building and Power lines.jpg for example with using a pd-because template. I selected that pd-becaue instead of cc0 because of the wording of {{Cc0}}. UH not waives copyrights. They confirm that there is no copyright. I think thats a difference. --Martin H. (talk) 19:40, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

IMAGENES BORRADAS

Hola Martin, nose porque me has borrado las imagenes, ya que en la licencia puse que era fruto de mi propio trabajo. Necesito saber porque las has borrado, por si tengo que modificar o estuviera algo mal puesto. Espero tu respuesta lo antes posible, ya que necesito las imagenes.

I think you refer to Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Aattcliente. What is that stuff about? Some instructions for your own wiki?? File:7wikimagen.jpg explains its your private wiki? What do you want with your private wiki instructions in Wikimedia Commons? Wikimedia Commons is not a filehost for your personal website. Also File:7wikimagen.jpg is a copyright violation because its not entirely your own work. --Martin H. (talk) 19:45, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Aattcliente, nomination 2. --Martin H. (talk) 19:56, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Martin estas imagenes las he subido porque las necesito para que mis usuarios aprendan a utilizar la wiki, y a saber que es una wiki. Por favor no las borres mas.

Upload them to your company wiki or on some other webhost. This is Wikimedia Commons, we serve as a project for educational media files that other Wikimedia projects can use. We not serve as a webhost for your company wiki instructions. --Martin H. (talk) 11:32, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Vale ya me veo que me las sigues borrando me puedes indicar un sitio donde yo las pueda subir?¿

Your own website. Your own wiki. --Martin H. (talk) 12:22, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

En mi wiki no puedo subir imagenes por eso las subi aqui en wikiconmons.

Then activate uploading on your wiki or upload it to the website of the company. But stop uploading here, this project is not created to host your internal company documents. --Martin H. (talk) 12:29, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Replacing the duplicate but keeping the name

Hi Martin. You may remember me, the nag of WS Popular Science Monthly image uploader fame. This is somewhat an unusual request and I am posting here because you know of my work with WS:PSM.

There are two identical images, one is uploaded by User:Inductiveload: File:PSM 49 - Polar Exploration - Robert Stein - map.jpg and one by myself: File:PSM V49 D338 Map of the unknown polar regions.jpg. Could you kindly delete my upload and replace it with Inductiveload's copy, but retain the PSM name [PSM V49 D338 Map of the unknown polar regions.jpg]. Links to Inductiveload's image were already changed to the new name. Thanks in advance.Ineuw talk page on en.ws 21:01, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

done. --Martin H. (talk) 22:02, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
Thanks. Ineuw talk page on en.ws 22:36, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

File:Beret smolensk 1 b.jpg

Hi Martin H. A user has requested the undeletion of File:Beret smolensk 1 b.jpg on my talk page. As you participated in the deletion discussion for the file, your input would be appreciated. Regards, FASTILY (TALK) 02:29, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

I stay with the deletion request reason and I not see it disproved by the discussion. The translated text by RussianTrooper (without any limitations on term and quantity of the material used) not includes modification, COM:PS#Required licensing terms is not fulfilled. RussianTrooper compares this with a cc-by, I disagree because under cc-by you must allow redistribution (§4a of license) and for this files it is not clear if you are even allowed to give others the permission to reuse it from our servers. The copyright text refers only to downloads from their server, thats something they can stop at any time. Offering for download and free reuse from our server means that we take controll over their distribution, and thats not included in the permission. A written permission to a realy free license is required. A permission such as that for kremlin.ru obtained by User:Russavia... following Commons:Deletion requests/License tags of russian websites (see for example version history of Template:Kremlin.ru). --Martin H. (talk) 17:34, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Pocoyo and User:Mjd2104

Hi Martin,

My name is Mark Dodson, I¨m the marketing Manager at Zinkia, we are responsible for the Pocoyo brand. I recently uploaded some photos and info to the Pocoyo English and Spanish wiki sites, which I understand have been deleted. Please know that the photos and info have been created by our company.

Thank you very much.

Regards, Mark mark.dodson@zinkia.com

I better answer to File talk:PCY USA VOTE 2011 RGB 150DPI.JPG, there you asked the question "what option I[you] should choose so the photo is not deleted". Upload it correctly. You work on this project as a person, your account not represents a company.
So the upload option in the upload wizard is "its not my own work" because this file is not your own work. Provide correct author, provide correct source (for example the company website or simply the name of the company and the name of the department responsible for this publication). You will be asked then to provide written permission. You must get this permission from someone in the company who is authorized to release the work under a free license allowing worldwide free reuse for any purpose. And you need to forward that written permission to our OTRS system. --Martin H. (talk) 17:40, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Problematic image from Popular Science Monthly

I was about to upload THIS IMAGE and noticed the message on the CATEGORY PAGE. Would it also apply to this image from 1907? Ineuw talk page on en.ws 07:16, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes. I suggest you blur them out. Make a notice in the category talkpage that there is something to replace with unblurred version when copyright expired. --Martin H. (talk) 18:26, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, and will do so.Ineuw talk page on en.ws 19:19, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Because category selection for images is after upload, when using the Upload wizard, I couldn't delete the picture when I noticed the copyright notice. Uploaded the new fuzzy version as directed and added the warning notices on the talk page, but the clear image is still there as the original upload. Could you please delete the clear version so that no one can revert it? File:PSM V70 D094 Nobel prize medals.jpg. Also, if the image is not fuzzy enough, I can upload another. Thank you. Ineuw talk page on en.ws 06:04, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

picture G Dogg (Iassen Ivanov)

Thank you Martin. I talked to the photographer. He has not uploaded this image on the internet himself anywhere. He had only provided the image to my husband who had used it on his facebook profile. What should we do in this case if we want to use it for my husband's wikipedia.bg page. What is a good place to uload it? What will be the simplest procedure?

Deleting files

Re the warnings, the upload process doesn't have a slot for images which are derivatives of images already uploaded, which is all these images are- I put a couple of pre-existing images together. Or at least I didn't see where to indicate that. Why do they make it so hard? It's not for the sake of copyright, since obviously these are okay. It's bad design. Becritical (talk) 01:17, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Responded under your post (; Becritical (talk) 01:59, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
My god, I just tried it again, it was worse than I even remembered it. I clicked that the file was not my own work, it said I need to give it "wikitext" whatever that means. I wrote that it was a collage of images already on Wikipedia. It told me it wasn't "valid wikitext." Short version, I've been trying this routine as little as I can for a long time, and never once made it though the maze except when saying it was all my own work. I think you have some pull in these matters. If you do, try to make it so that people can upload images without getting hassled by templates afterward. If it's a collage of pics on WP, I should be able to say so. And if I don't know what "wikitext" is after all this time, why would anyone else? And why should I have to say that it's not my own work, when it partially is? Becritical (talk) 07:12, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

The airshow is organized by the department of defence of bulgaria. therefore its logo is a copyright free work of state exective agency --Gonzosft (talk) 10:46, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Its a copyright work of state executive acency, its not covered by the copyright exemptions, the copyright tag is not applicable. The right place to place such comments is however the file talkpage. --Martin H. (talk) 11:06, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Excuse me, but this image (File:Samantha Boscarino(2011).jpg) seems a screenshot, so copyrighted material.--151.67.198.71 11:20, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Trianglechoke khi.jpg and Shaheenpic.jpg

(Copyright violation: http://lahore.olx.com.pk/martial-arts-boxing-wrestling-instructor-needed-iid-95315116)

This academy is owned by me and I was the one who posted the pictures, furthermore I own this picture.

(Copyright violation: http://www.pak-mma.com/?p=498)

Again, this is my site, that I own and run and it is me performing the Triangle Choke

If its you who is on a photo then it is not you who created the photo. Your above sound unlikely and it looks like you mix up copyright & physical ownership of photo & photo related to you. This is three different things, only the first is important: the photographer who in the foremost owns the copyright. --Martin H. (talk) 17:22, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

File:Promoting Thalia Front Row.JPG

Hey, it deletes the file () Yes, the author gave me the original file, it does give you the link to check it, I think the bot is malfunctioning commonsdelinker. Thanks -I hope you make letters on the subject-

Te lo diré en español, (Perdona mi inglés), fíjate que yo mismo subí el archivo, y esa foto el propio autor me paso (el archivo original), el hecho de que él lo haya públicado en un sitio web, (Club de fans de la cantante Thalía), no quiere decir que este violando copyright, porque yo simplemente subí el archivo original (No se trata de eso commons, además lo incluí como derecho de autor, aún la licencia lo elejí yo porque es la que él me había dicho), no entiendo, entonces sí yo creara una web personal y subiera simultaneamente las imagenes en la web y en commons no serían permitidas?, aún cuando simplemente subíera el archivo de origen. Creo de que el bot, opera hasta cierto punto mal.--Chrishonduras (talk) 19:y 07, 26 November 2011 (UTC)


--Chrishonduras (talk) 18:56, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

You claimed authorship on this photo by claiming that you are the photographer. You just confirmed that this was wrong. Stop uploading files taken from the web with false claims of own work. --Martin H. (talk) 18:59, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
La verdad que no entiendo, porque al final es obra del autor y el fue quien me pasó el archivo original, aún cuando lo hayá subido a una web (Club de fans de la cantante), entonces, en última instancia que sería recomendable al subir un archivo de ese tipo, es decir dónde la persona me cedé el archivo original, y yo lo quiera subir a commons?. --Chrishonduras (talk) 19:10, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
En general, no puedas subir obras de otras personas. Puedas subir obras de otras personas si el autor otorga permiso para que sean utilizadas, copiadas, modificadas y vendidas por quien sea. En todo caso: decir la verdad cuando la carga, no sólo klick en "Este archivo es mi propio trabaj". --Martin H. (talk) 19:22, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
A bueno, gracias, pero una pequeñisima pregunta, en todo caso de ello, como hago para subir esas imagenes a commons y no darle click en (Fruto de mi trabajo), creo que existe otro cargador de imagenes para terceras personas, pero me puedes orientar en ello, para que esto no vuelve a suceder?. --Chrishonduras (talk) 19:31, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Camuzotomotiv's images

I checked and the BMW images were the last ones that he ever uploaded as of now. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 19:06, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

It was the only file used in a project, but not the only upload. For the other uploads we already have file (e.g. File:Logo-citroen-edit-fr.png) or they are unfree. --Martin H. (talk) 19:08, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Trianglechoke khi.jpg and Shaheenpic.jpg

(Copyright violation: http://lahore.olx.com.pk/martial-arts-boxing-wrestling-instructor-needed-iid-95315116) This academy is owned by me and I was the one who posted the pictures, furthermore I own this picture. (Copyright violation: http://www.pak-mma.com/?p=498) Again, this is my site, that I own and run and it is me performing the Triangle Choke

If its you who is on a photo then it is not you who created the photo. Your above sound unlikely and it looks like you mix up copyright & physical ownership of photo & photo related to you. This is three different things, only the first is important: the photographer who in the foremost owns the copyright. --Martin H. (talk) 17:22, 26 November 2011 (UTC)


Unfortunately, you dont have your facts right, and please refrain from assuming whether things are "likely" or not. First off I DO own this picture, it was taken by MY camera, which I handed to someone while I was demonstrating the choke. And 2nd of all "Your above sound unlikely", excuse me but you dont even know me and instead of playing guess why dont you CONFIRM first if I am the owner of the academy at all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BOOG33Y (talk • contribs) 22:15, 26 November 2011‎ (UTC)

I dont care who owns some academy. You have just described yourself that you are not the author yourself - but wrongly uploaded a photo saying its your 'own work'. The copyright belongs to the photographer, not to the person who provided the equipment to the photographer. Please upload files with correct information, not just klick on the "its my own work" button. --Martin H. (talk) 23:08, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

There WAS no photographer, wow dude youre such an idiot, would you consider a picture of you and a friend in some country that was taken by a random person walking by because you asked him to as HIS property? If yes, you have problems, if no, put the picture back up.

Aha, "I handed to someone" is suddenly no one and the photo magically appeared on your camera. I dont like to be called an idiot based on such fantasy stories. To answer your quiestion: Yes, hes the owner of copyrights. That is what the law says. --Martin H. (talk) 23:48, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Dude you are totally retarded, go crawl back under the rock where you came from. Seriously my camera, my event, photo of me taken by SOME guy, NOT a professional photographer, get your logics straight, it might be "the law" where you come from. I'm surprised they make idiots like you admins.

My images

I think you're wrong. Images are correctly licensed Commons 2.0.

My English is not good enough. Speak Portuguese?

Quero dizer que as licenças 2.0 são perfeitamente aceitas, tanto é que têm predefinição. Donde tirou que violei copyright?

Yanguas (talk) 01:24, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Commons:Imagens do Flickr. is not allowed on Commons. --Martin H. (talk) 01:26, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
“ Somente as imagens do Flickr etiquetadas como BY (CC-BY) ou BY SA (CC-BY-SA) são permitidas no Commons. ”

—Commons:Imagens do Flickr

. As minhas eram marcadas com {{CC BY-NC-SA 2.0}}, dentro do permitido, portanto. Abri uma discussão na Esplanada a respeito. Yanguas (talk) 01:56, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

{{Cc-by-nc-sa-2.0}} = eliminação rápida. Not permited. Maybe the instructions in [the old upload form help you more. --Martin H. (talk) 02:00, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Deleted picture: Dean John Champion

Dean John Champion is my grandfather. I own the rights to the photo I uploaded.

File:Dr. Dean John Champion.jpg is not yet deleted. You maybe want to correct the author (the photographer) information? And the source information? --Martin H. (talk) 03:06, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Sorry about that, I misread and thought it was deleted. I don't have the photographer's information, the picture is over a decade old. How do I add source information to say that the photo is rightfully mine? Thanks!

The photographer is the first copyright holder. this makes uploads of such "family pictures" problematic because its the family of the photographer that inherits the rights. --Martin H. (talk) 11:41, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Ответ из России / Response from Russia

Russia: Здравствуйте , автором файлов являлся постоянный член организации Варшавского договора, СССР. Приемником СССР является Россия. {PD-RU-exempt}

English: Hello, author of the files was a permanent member of the Warsaw Pact, the SOVIET UNION. Receiver is the USSR Russia {PD-RU-exempt}

The author of the medal. Yes. The design of the medal is public domain. But the photographer has a copyright too. That copyright is violated. --Martin H. (talk) 19:58, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
RussiaПожалуйста, на правах администратора прикрепите нужный Вам шаблон лицензии для сохранения файлов для международной иллюстрации в статьях. Мы просим не удалять, а привести Вас файлы в порядок и мы будим смотреть как они правильно оформляются. Откуда нам брать оригиналы файлов ? если автору заниматься иллюстрацией Wikimedia это не нужно
English Please, administrator rights attach license template you want to save files to the international illustrations in articles. We do not delete and bring you files in order and we watch as they correctly budim are processed. Where we take the original files? If the author to illustrate Wikimedia is not needed --Дмитрий Третьяков (Δ) 00:40, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
Make a photo of the medal yourself. Dont take other peoples photos. --Martin H. (talk) 20:40, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
Russia: Если Мы распечатаем фотографии на цветном принтере и отсканируем их. Это будит считаться собственной работой ?
English: If We print out pictures on a color printer and scan them. This is thought to be own work?

--Дмитрий Третьяков (Δ) 00:54, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Russia: Автор файла является Коммунистическая партия Советского союза, Приемником СССР является Россия.{PD-RU-exempt}

English: Author of this file is the Communist Party of the Soviet Union, the receiver of the USSR is Russia.{PD-RU-exempt}

Not an official document of legislative, administrative or judicial character. --Martin H. (talk) 19:58, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
Russia: Официального сайта Коммунистической партии Советского союза нет, так как СССР с 1991 года не существует. Приемник Россия и автор не требуется. В России ностальгируют по СССР и большинство сохраняют верность Коммунистической партии. Для граждан России Ельцин и Горбачев государственные преступники развалив СССР  ! Мы можем потерять Иллюстрации о Коммунистической партии СССР . Просим оставить.
English: Official site of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union because of the USSR in 1991, does not exist. Russia and the author of the receiver is not required. In Russia, the USSR and most nostal′giruût to remain faithful to the Communist Party. For citizens of Russia Yeltsin and Gorbachev Government criminals razvaliv USSR! We can lose the Illustrations of the Communist Party of the SOVIET UNION. Please leave. --Дмитрий Третьяков (Δ) 00:40, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
Its not that we like to 'delete' it. We simply not upload such unfree content here. Also we not remove it from the public or take it away from the people. We simply not host it on our project, thats all. Its still visible on the source you toke it from. --Martin H. (talk) 20:44, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
Russia: Если Мы распечатаем фотографии на цветном принтере и отсканируем их. Это будит считаться собственной работой ?
English: If We print out pictures on a color printer and scan them. This is thought to be own work ?

--Дмитрий Третьяков (Δ) 00:54, 29 November 2011 (UTC)


Russia: Файлы обозначены автором и открытым источником из Официального сайта организации. Указано что при использовании материала , обязательно указывать с ссылку на источник и автора. Официальный сайт и его материалы открыты для свободного доступа и разрешения для использования его в статьях о организации не требуется.

English: Files marked with the author and open source from the official site of the organization. Pointed out that when using the material, it is necessary to specify the link to the source and author. Official site and its materials are open for free access and permissions to use it in articles about the organization is not required. --Дмитрий Третьяков (Δ) 17:53, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

That website is not "open source". Its unfree. Free to access has nothing to do with free content. The upload is a copyright violation. --Martin H. (talk) 19:58, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
Russia: Если Мы распечатаем фотографии на цветном принтере и отсканируем их. Это будит считаться собственной работой ?
English: If We print out pictures on a color printer and scan them. This is thought to be own work ?
--Дмитрий Третьяков (Δ) 00:54, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
No. It must be entirely your own work, not just a reproduction of someone else work. --Martin H. (talk) 20:57, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
Russia: Мы смотрели на давно загруженный у Вас Файл и претензий к нему нет, где автор с ссылается на Официальный сайт. Что нам делать без автора ?

English: We looked at the File you have downloaded long ago and claims to it, where the author refers to the official site. What shall we do without author?

--Дмитрий Третьяков (Δ) 01:05, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Good question, ask the uploader. --Martin H. (talk) 21:20, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

File:Lhalu_Tsewang_Dorje.jpg

Dear Martin H, I am contacting you as I understood you know well the copyright issues. The author of the photo, a British, died in 1971. This file was taken in Tibet, before it was incorporated to China, therefore I believe the PRC / Taiwan tag Template:PD-China can not be applied here. I notice similar problem [5], but with no reaction yet. I believe some of these photos might be acceptable under Template:PD-India, such as this File:Lhalu Lhacham and family members at Dekyi Lingka.jpg as it was taken at Dekyi Lingka at a time it was the embassy of India. --Rédacteur Tibet (talk) 20:22, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

The question is where the photos have been published first. Without any evidence of first publication in India or China or wherever I'd assume the photographers home the country of origin. From what I see in en:Freddie Spencer Chapman he always "returned" from his expeditions - returned to UK? Then UK is the country of origin and only {{PD-old}} is applicable, and is not fulfilled today. --Martin H. (talk) 20:28, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
I continued reading. He sent photos to India, if the photos have been published in India then pd-india is applicable. China (no matter PRC or ROC) related copyright tag is unlikely correct. --Martin H. (talk) 20:33, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
Many many thanks for this discussion. Difficult to know whether these photos were published. What is sure is that it is currently owned by the Pitt Rivers Museum. --Rédacteur Tibet (talk) 20:52, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
I found that at least some of these photos are also recorded at "India Office Library and Records, British Library"--Rédacteur Tibet (talk) 21:56, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Bayern-München-Logos

Hallo Martin H.,

wieso hast du File:Bayern Monaco.png und File:FC Bayern Munich.png als “copyright violation” gelöscht? Ich hatte die entsprechenden Schnelllöschanträge rund zwei Stunden vorher explizit abgelehnt, weil in beiden Fällen keine Schöpfungshöhe (COM:TO) gegeben ist, und hatte beide mit den Vorlagen PD-Ineligible und Trademarked. Dass du nun daherkommst und beide Dateien ohne weitere Kommentare als URV löschst, ist gelinde gesagt doch etwas verwunderlich. Ich bitte um eine Erklärung. Viele Grüße --Rosenzweig τ 22:30, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Ich habe die Uploads dieser Sockenpuppe allesamt gelöscht, das ist richtig. Zum Logo im einzelnen kann ich im Nachhinein noch die Argumentation anführen, dass das Design eventuell gemeinfrei sein kann, die Darstellung es aber nicht zwingenderweise ist, vergleichbar COM:COA Punkt 4. --Martin H. (talk) 22:51, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
Das ist kein Wappen, sondern ein Logo. Die Darstellung ist derart simpel und in großen Teilen (bayerisches Rautenmuster) auch schon jahrhundertealt, da ist urheberrechtlich nichts geschützt, egal wer das jetzt konkret gezeichnet hat. Markenrechte bestehen höchstwahrscheinlich, aber dafür gibt es die Vorlage Trademarked. --Rosenzweig τ 00:03, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
Ich habe einen Vergleich gezogen, nicht behauptet dieses sei ein Wappen. Und natürlich ist ein mögliches Urheberrecht des Zeichners zu beachten, vielleicht mag ein deutscher Zeichner kein Urheberrecht haben aufgrund der fehlenden Schöpfungshöhe, in anderen Ländern sieht das aber anders aus. Mit der fantastischen Quellenangabe "unknown" und einem Urheber gleicher Bezeichnung wird der Nachweis hierüber schwierig. Empfehlung also: Erstelle eine eigene Zeichnung und lad sie hoch mit sauberer Quellenangabe. --Martin H. (talk) 00:12, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
Zu beachten ist hier auf Commons bei einem Logo aus Deutschland nur noch amerikanisches Recht, und auch nach diesem (Beispiele s. Commons:TO#United States) dürfte die threshold of originality keinesfalls überschritten sein. Die Person des Zeichners und die Quelle sind dazu unerheblich, auch wenn saubere Quellenangaben natürlich wünschenswert sind. Gruß --Rosenzweig τ 00:41, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
Dem widerspreche ich. Ein britischer Zeichner hätte sehr wohl ein Urheberrecht welches nach Commons:L#Interaction of United States copyright law and non-US copyright law zu berücksichtigen ist. Und egal, ich brauche keine Sockenpuppe die hier ständig wiederkehrt und mit der Nadelstichtaktik versucht massenweise gestohlene Fotos und ein zwei unbequellte Logos hochzuladen die jedes von einem Vorschüler erstellte Skript mit besseren Quellenangaben hochladen kann, wodurch dieser Depp aber jedesmal eine kleine Bestätigung erhälz es doch mit der nächsten Sockenpuppe nochmal zu versuchen. Geh doch einfach auf die FC Bayern Seite und kopier deren Logo und lad es hier hoch. Dann hast du eine sauber Quellenangabe und wir ersparen uns die Diskussion, und die Sockenpuppe verschwindet hoffentlich auch schnell wieder aus dem Projekt. --Martin H. (talk) 00:52, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
Um uns weitere Auseinandersetzungen um diese Logos zu ersparen, habe ich jetzt die von Marsupilami aus einem FC-Bayern-PDF erstellte SVG-Version des Logos aus de.wp hochgeladen, ansonsten hätte ich wohl die Löschprüfung (Undeletion requests) bemühen müssen. Dein Verhalten in dieser Sache empfinde ich als reichlich unkollegial, das ganze Gerede von wegen (fiktiver) britischer Zeichner etc. als reine Ausflüchte. Und dass du (was der Kernpunkt sein dürfte) Dateien unbedingt gelöscht haben willst, weil sie ein bestimmter Benutzer hochgeladen hat, erinnert mich sehr an die Zustände in der engl. Wikpedia, die jüngst im WP-Kurier zurecht kritisiert wurden. --Rosenzweig τ 20:00, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
Mit dem Unterschied, dass nicht etwas vom Benutzer im Projekt erstelltes, sondern etwas von einer externen (nicht benannten) Quelle, 1:1 auf unser Projekt kopiertes entfernt wurde. Eine reproduzierbare und in diesem Fall unbedingt in nicht derart schlechter Art wiederholbarere Tätigkeit. Eine Wiederholung in guter Ausführung schließt die Beachtung möglicher, wenn auch nur denkbar möglicher, Urheberrechte ein, gemäß COM:PRP. --Martin H. (talk) 22:29, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

from Itachi2011

I don't understand very well, why you deleted my images. Tell me how do it right

You cant upload such stuff here, especially not with the information that you created it entirely yourself. See Commons:First steps to learn that this is a free content project, and see Commons:Image casebook#Internet images. --Martin H. (talk) 19:53, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Fragwürdige Bildlizenz

Hallo Martin! Ich habe hier ein Bild – File:Bernhard karnthaler.jpg – gefunden, dessen Bildlizenz mir höchst fragwürdig erscheint. Als Bildautor ist "Franz Baldauf" und als Quelle "Gemeinde Lanzenkirchen" angegeben. Eine Freigabe seitens des Urhebers Franz Baldauf, den ich persönlich kenne und der ein professioneller Fotograf ist, ist nicht ersichtlich. Für mich liegt daher der Verdacht einer URV sehr nahe. Vielleicht könntest Du Dir dies bitte einmal ansehen und ggf. das Bild löschen. Ein Anschreiben des Bildeinstellers wird nicht viel bringen, da dies dessen einzige Bearbeitung ist.

Kannst Du mir bei dieser Gelegenheit auch bitte sagen, weshalb auf commons die Eingabe-Schaltflächen (Standard-Schaltflächen wie eckige oder runde Klammern, Hochkomma, <tags> etc.) nicht funktionieren oder was ich in den Einstellungen tun muss, damit diese wieder funktionieren? – Vielen Dank und freundliche Grüße Steindy (talk) 10:13, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Die zweite Frage kann ich dir leider nicht beantworten. --Martin H. (talk) 18:16, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
Schade, denn ich habe schon alles mögliche durchprobiert und es funktioniert nicht (bereits seit der letzten Umstellung). Ich weiß leider auch nicht, wo ich fragen könnte. – F.G und noch einen schönen Abend Steindy (talk) 18:36, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
Vielleicht kann dir User:DieBuche als technisch versiertet und hilfsbereitet Benutzer helfen. Vielleicht ansonsten noch im Forum oder auf Wikipedia:Fragen zur Wikipedia. --Martin H. (talk) 18:39, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
Wieder einmal vielen Dank Martin! --Steindy (talk) 18:50, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

copyright infrigment

I had posted pictures found in the internet, and received now a notification that I have infringed copyright!

Sure. You are not allowed to post pictures that you found somewhere on the web unless the picture is published under a free content license. You may read the first steps and learn something about free content and the scope of this project. --Martin H. (talk) 21:57, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Hallo Martin H. you warned the user http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Maricolome, I blocked him for 1 week because he kept uploading images.

Groetjes --Neozoon (talk) 22:49, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Why do you DELETE my pictures?

Why do you delete my uploaded pictures? I have everything mentioned with sources and authors. --GeorgianJorjadze (talk) 11:04, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

The only problem was that the sources are unfree. --Martin H. (talk) 11:11, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

How can I understand which is free and which is not? For example is this picture free and can I upload this? http://www.flickr.com/photos/mrebrasil/6082337949/ --GeorgianJorjadze (talk) 13:09, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Is unfree. There is nothing from the copyright holder that suggests a free license, but files on Commons COM:PS#Must be freely licensed or public domain. The opposite, the copyright holder explains 'All Rights Reserved', that means you can watch the photo, but you are forbidden to copy it or do something with it. --Martin H. (talk) 13:57, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

What about this picture for example? http://www.flickr.com/photos/whitehouse/6309155951/in/photostream Can I upload this picture? Can you please show me a personal example from any other website you can upload the pictures from without any worries of copyright problems which are free. And if the picture i upload belongs to me how do i prove that? --GeorgianJorjadze (talk) 16:53, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Copyright has different aspects. Continuous learning is required. You may read:

and if you want a quick answer, our Image casebook is really helpful.

Regarding to your qustions:
  • For Flickr-Uploads see COM:Flickr files
  • You never can take images "without worries". You have to search whether the publisher is the original author. There are helpful search-engines like Google. And you can't take images of e.g. most product packaging because you would violate the copyright of the agency that has created the layout and images on it.
  • Usually, we are able to see whether an image was taken by you. Some creterias, we evaluate are: It has huge dimensions, it is not published yet elsewhere (if so, we ask for COM:OTRS-permission. The letter should be sent by a trustworthy sender-address (e.g. not @hotmail.com but master@domain.tld, where domain.tld is the address of the website, where we found the image).
  • Please note that even if you physically own a copy of a painting or even the original, you are usually not the copyright-holder. -- RE rillke questions? 17:10, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

AeropuertoMIDSatelital.png & AeropuertoCampecheSatelite.png

Muchas Gracias por advertirme del tema, sinceramente pido una disculpa por ello. Las imágenes fueron sacadas completamente & 100% Por mí. Tomadas en Captura de Pantalla, así que la imagen que tomé está bajo mi Copyright y no viola ningún Copyright. Disculpe por no agregar de donde las saqué, soy nuevo en esto todavía. Saludos desde México Jmagno1998 (talk) 13:55, 4 December 2011 (UTC) jmagno1998 ¿Algún Problema?¡Haz click aquí!

Are you the owner of the satellite? No! So it is not 100% your own work. --Martin H. (talk) 13:56, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Ok, but...

Ok, mas fiquei chateado com você por ter eliminado <Fernando Collor.jpg>. This is the a new version the File:Fernando collor.jpg and have the license Agencia Brasil.--Rafael Wiki (talk) 14:28, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Its a different version, and its not covered by the license becaue that license is only applicable to files published by them on their website. --Martin H. (talk) 14:45, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

pictures

the pictures used are all up on flickr and used in million other places. they were clicked by my friends of the Doon School. I will be very grateful if you can place them back. thankyou very much!!

You uploaded photos that you not created yourself (as you just said) with the false claim that they are entirely your own work. The second problem is that a photo is not ok to upload here just because it is used elsewhere. The copyrighth holder must agree to a free licensing,thats a license allowing anyone, worldwide, to reuse the file anywhere, anytime for any purpose, educational as well as commercial purposes. Do some reading befor start working on a project... --Martin H. (talk) 16:01, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

DiscountDoubleCheckFan

The flickr source http://www.flickr.com/photos/71131533@N05/ is a legitimate account, used to provide further promotion of photographs from [MU Architect]. Photographs from this Flickr account are usable on Wikimedia Commons and are not appropriate for deletion.

Please remove the incorrectly created page found at Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by DiscountDoubleCheckFan and any corresponding incorrect updates.

File:Marquette University Law School Library.jpg, File:Eckstein Hall, Marquette University Law School.png, and File:Bud Selig at Marquette University Law School.png should, however, all be deleted for the reasons outlined. Thank you for your attention.

DiscountDoubleCheckFan (talk) 06:50, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

OTRS email from Marquette University will be needed to make sure that the Flickr account is legit since anyone could have created and uploaded the photos without permission (See COM:FLICKRWASHING). Bidgee (talk) 07:02, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Martin H. please do not create pages such as Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by DiscountDoubleCheckFan with blatantly incorrect information. Please explain yourself, or as Bidgee suggested, get further information as needed.

Also, see Commons:FAQ#What_happens_if_a_Flickr_license_changes.3F. If an upload from Flickr has a verified CC-BY or CC-BY SA license, the file remains on Commons. The photographs you have identified are not appropriate for deletion.

DiscountDoubleCheckFan (talk) 02:40, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

My comment was directed at you, not Martin H. Bidgee (talk) 03:34, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

I see nothing wrong with the deletion request. Obviously the account on flickr is created to publish something under a free license and it is questionable if the account was created by someone who has the legitimation to publish something under that kind of licensing. The upload to Commons occured some few minutes after the publication on flickr, the uploader to Commons and the uploader on flickr are the same person. This is called flickr washing. --Martin H. (talk) 17:54, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Images without license

Look this. [6] and [7]. Progenie of the great apocalypse (talk) 12:04, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

upskirt peak

This picture was taken by me. It should not have been deleted

User

This user has made ​​several shipments of suspect images without source and despite several warnings not to. You can check it? Thank you. Sorry my english. Fabiano msg 00:59, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

File:Strezimirovtzi-Border-Checkpoint1.jpg

I would like to know why did you vandalize my upload of an image file that was entirely my own photograph?! Why don't you check rights before deleting something? DemonX (talk) 01:38, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

With your first upload File:Strezimirovtzi-Border-Checkpoint.jpg you forgot to select a valid license in the upload wizard. All I did was to inform you that you must correct this mistake. --Martin H. (talk) 10:26, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Hi

Hello Martin. I've came across user Mikehudak97 (talk · contributions · deleted user contributions · recent activity · logs · block log · global contribs · CentralAuth) contributions while helping removing the backlog at cat:copyvio. I've deleted two tagged copyvios from him and another untagged one; whilst other that I've sent to DR. Maybe I'm paranoic :-) but I suspect the remaning are also taken from various websites. I googled and tineyed some of them and found nothing, though. Do you know any better search engine to look at? Thanks. --Marco Aurelio (disputatio) 11:21, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

I cant give you any other results, but I share your impression about this uploader. But the conclusion on File:Ivanov fow.jpg is a false positive, they got the image from our project, according to size and filename ("427px-Ivanov_fow") --Martin H. (talk) 11:36, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Michael Repoulis

Hello Martin H, 

             I ask you please to reconsider the process of the deletion of my work.

I feel I can offer Wikimedia work that is of value. Looking forward to your reply.

Best,

Michael Repoulis

Regarding the deletion of some files

Hi, you deleted the photos File:Black-mamba-mouth.jpg and File:Kenyan-black-mamba.jpg for copyright reasons, but I talked to the guy who owns the pictures (his name is Peter Hutch) and he said that I can use them because they are licensed under a "Creative Commons License". He even gave me a link to it here. So should I upload them again or can you somehow undelete them and put in the correct license tag? There was another photo that was deleted: File:D jamesoni kaimosae.jpg - that one I sent an e-mail to the owner of the picture asking him for permission to use it on Wikipedia and I'm still waiting for an answer. Bastian (talk) 18:41, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

The license http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/3.0/deed.en is not a free license, see Commons:Licensing#Well-known_licenses. For the second part of your question, a permission for use on Wikipedia is not sufficient, see Commons:Project_scope#Must_be_freely_licensed_or_public_domain. In any case: if you upload someone else work to this project please not klick the "its my own work" button in the upload wizard. The file description of your uploads asserted that it is a photo that you created entirely yourself. --Martin H. (talk) 20:26, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
... and Hutch is the writer of some article linked at this moolf.com source. He is not the photographer but just reusing other peoples work. The license must come from the copyright holder, not from some random other person. --Martin H. (talk) 20:40, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Okay, I just contacted Bill Love (phone number: 239-691-4414) and got a voicemail, so I sent him an e-mail to ask him if I could use this File:Defensive-black-mamba.jpg. I also created a Flickr account and contacted Günter Leitenbauer, pongboy, and Tad20D for their permissions to use the photos. So please don't be quick to delete them. I'm pretty sure they'll be okay with letting us use their pictures as long as we list them as the "authors". Bastian (talk) 23:51, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Get a permission before you upload copyright violations. Most authors are not interested in free licenses. --Polarlys (talk) 23:54, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

I will get permission and upload them all back as the permissions come. If they give me permission to use this license, I will be able to use them correct? Bastian (talk) 23:59, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Got Permission

I got permission from pongboy (he said to credit him as: D. Maguire) and Tad20D (said to credit him as: Tad Arensmeier) to use any of their snake photos under the following license. Bill Love gave me permission to use only the photo of the black mamba in the defensive position, again under the same license as above. I had asked each of them if I could use that specific license and they replied yes, but Bill said only for that one black mamba photo. I am still waiting to hear from "guenterleitenbauer" for permission to use the other photos. So I am going to go ahead and upload them again. Bastian (talk) 16:08, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Please forward your written permission to Wikimedia following the instructions in Commons:OTRS. --Martin H. (talk) 17:05, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Image of Nexian phones deleted

Hi there, why you recently deleted all images in List of Nexian GSM phones. May I know why? I am sure I adheared to the guidelines and were not coppyright infringed and i already put the sources which is nexian.co.id Thank.

New image

Can I use the tag Template:PD-BrazilGov for this image? She is the official Brazilian government and was made in 1967.--Rafael Wiki (talk) 00:16, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

The question is: why should you use it? The status of the shown person is unimportant, only the copyright matters. --Martin H. (talk) 00:19, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
There is a similar version (File:Costa e Silva.jpg). I want only provide a better picture for readers wikis.--Rafael Wiki (talk) 00:28, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
Looks like that file is for some reason published under a Creative Commons license (legitimately or not, thats not my busines). That publication under a free license is not expandable to some other reproduction from some other source. --Martin H. (talk) 01:01, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

HP TouchPad

How is the content not free?

How is it free? --Martin H. (talk) 01:41, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Copyright !!

Please have a look at

  1. File:1965 Dubai Airport first Comet.jpg
  2. File:1965 Dubai airport.jpg

--Both are scanned from an unknown source, and I don't believe that the uploader is the original photographer of the scene..Your opinion please--...Captain......Tälk tö me.. 13:35, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Its a real photographer with +60 age, A good contributor..--...Captain......Tälk tö me.. 13:36, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Upload of pictures - help!

Hi Martin, You were kind enough to provide some information about uploading of images in November and I am writing you again now for some further clarification. I have again tried to upload images from Flickr and again I get a message from Wikipedia that the source is not good enough. The pictures come from Tetra Pak's own Flickr channel and belong to Tetra Pak, which is why I state the source as Tetra Pak. I'm not sure what more I can do! It is Tetra Pak who has published the pictures on their channel and the pictures (old advertising pictures it looks like) are quite clearly their property. If they post them on Flickr they are free to use, no? Please advice on how to make this work. I have an article that I would like to publish and it would be great if I could do that with the images! :-) Many thanks, Tartesauxpommes (talk) 08:54, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Check the filepage history of your uploads. Just writing "Flickr" is not a source, flickr is a filehost with how many billion files? Writing "flickr" as source is like writing "book" instead of providing a correct quotation to the book. I think that was your problem recently. --Martin H. (talk) 16:34, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Porque borran las fotos que subo

porque borras las fotos que subi para daniel aranzubia y diogo salomao --Brais pika (talk) 14:27, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Because File:Daniel Aranzubia 2010-2011.jpg is not your Own work but stolen from the web. --Martin H. (talk) 16:35, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks

Thank you very much for your answer yesterday night. I didnot even kno the existence and meaning of language select.
Hop ! Kikuyu3 (talk) 20:50, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

The black mamba pictures

You keep deleting the two images of the black mamba striking and the other one where it is eating. I have forwarded an email to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org having permission from the owner of the pics to use them. In fact, I have forwarded 2 other e-mail from 2 other Flickr users who have given me permission via e-mail to upload any picture to wikipedia which I like. Bastian (talk) 21:39, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

I see non of the permissions confirmed and Im not sure if you ask for the correct permission. You have permission to upload. You need permission for reuse by anyone, worldwide, and not only wikipedia, to reuse a picture anywhere, anytime, for any purpose, for educational purposes and for money making purposes. Thats the required permission. --Martin H. (talk) 21:43, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Yes, all three of the guys gave me permission to upload the pictures and use them on Wikipedia (under Creative commons). I even forwarded a fourth e-mail from Bill Love giving me permission. You deleted the picture of the black mamba eating its prey, yet I have strict permission from the owner of the picture himself to use it freely. You can contact him yourself. God, it is so frustrating! I work so hard to get the permissions from these Flickr users and you just go ahead and delete the picture. That isn't fair! Bastian (talk) 22:10, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Its so frustrating? I thank god that now that I gave you the identification of the authors you even care for the photographers of this phtos. Before that you have entered "mamba" to google and have stolen whatever file you just found and uploaded here with false claims of "its my own work"... Please wait untill your permission is confirmed, then upload. --Martin H. (talk) 22:13, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I contacted the authors and they gave me permission by e-mail saying I can use their pictures freely just as long as I credit them with it. I forwarded those e-mails twice now. Tad the owner of the picture of mamba feeding on prey (which you deleted) and the other one with the black mamba striking with its mouth opened wide gave me permission to use both of those pictures. The other two Günter Leitenbauer (username on Flickr is "günterleitenbauer") and D. Maguire (username on Flickr is "pongboy") gave me permission to use ANY of their photos on wikipedia as long as I credit them and link to their Flickr pages. How else do you think I know "pongboy's" real name is D. Maguire - because he told me to credit it to that name. Then there was 1 picture (the lead picture in the infobox on the black mamba article) which I got explicit permission from Bill Love by phone and of course, by e-mail to use and he even gave me what kind of license in the e-mail. He wrote exactly this: "under the provisions of http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Template:Cc-by-3.0-us". If you'd like, I can send you ALL of the e-mails to you directly just so that you can confirm. Bastian (talk) 23:15, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

The name - david and mentioned surname - is written on flickr. Just wait untlill your permission is confirmed. --Martin H. (talk) 23:22, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

I received an e-mail from Wikimedia Commons thanking me with a ticket number for the pictures that you want to delete. The one that was feeding and the other one. The 2 pictures by Tad Arensmeier. The e-mail asks me for the wikimedia links to the pictures which Tad gave me permission for, but you deleted one of them. So I only sent them the one left. The ticket number was: 2011121710013054. Bastian (talk) 23:39, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

I can't even upload the one with the mamba feeding anymore. It keeps saying "duplicate". Bastian (talk) 23:45, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
Günter answered me that he gave you permission to reuse only the Mamba photo under strictly non-commercial conditions.
Your sentence «The other two Günter Leitenbauer (username on Flickr is "günterleitenbauer") and D. Maguire (username on Flickr is "pongboy") gave me permission to use ANY of their photos on wikipedia as long as I credit them and link to their Flickr pages.» is wrong in essential points.
You not got permission to reuse any photos but only one or two.
You not get permission to a free content license but for non-commercial reuse in Wikipedia. Such permission is regretably not acceptable for Wikimedia projects, Commons:Project scope#Required licensing terms is not fulfilled (commercial reuse). Two of the points in Commons:Project scope#Non-allowable licence terms are obstacles to reuse on Wikimedia projects (again commercial reuse and reuse only in Wikipedia). --Martin H. (talk) 11:14, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
I deleted the files taken from Günters flickr without permission. He not gave permission and regretably he cant give permission to a free license as he explained to me on flickr. What you did with your uploads is copyright infringement. Please work more seriously with copyright and permissions. --Martin H. (talk) 20:56, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

File:Zmajevic-Bishop.jpg

First and second versions of file "Zmajevic-Bishop.jpg" were not my own BUT third (last) version is my own work actually. I did this picture personally in Perast (Montenegro). Restore and do not delete it, please.--Montegorn (talk) 12:42, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

I think I identified the source, the source is unfree. Why would you upload someone else picture first if you have your own photo? To prevent misunderstanding: taking someone else photo and editing it a little bit not makes it entirely your own work and not allows you to upload the result here. --Martin H. (talk) 13:50, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
I repeat: third (last) version - it is MY OWN photo. I did it picture. You can see it in my blog: http://montegorn.livejournal.com/32936.html Yes, initially I tried to use another picture (first and second version) because quality was better then on my photo, but you wrote me about incorrect license and it is reason why I uploaded third (last) version.--Montegorn (talk) 14:21, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
I didnt know that the unfree source is your blog. Please provide some evidence (comment, adendum to blog entry, etc) there that a version of this photo is posted to Commons with all copyrights waived (public domain). --Martin H. (talk) 14:26, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
All comments in my blog in Russian. Are you going to study this language? My nickname in Wiki is "Montegorn" and blog is calling "montegorn.livejournal.com". Which else evidence are you expecting? Which reasons have you got for assuming that last version of picture is not my own?--Montegorn (talk) 15:00, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Deletion of Sims3gameplay.png

I am very confused. This is not the first time this has happened to me. I upload an image which gets promptly deleted and when I try to put a fair-use rationale tag it says "This may nominate for speedy deletion... Wikipedia does not accept fair use rationales" Yet I see them all the time on tons of images! In fact, I simply copied and pasted the rationale tag from another Sims 3 gameplay screenshot and when I put it on my own it looked totally different (it had the speedy deletion tag instead) Why do other images have fair use rationales and when I try to put a tag on one of my own images it doesn't work? What does it take to get a fair use rationale accepted? I'm very confused here. Cadiomals (talk) 21:50, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Wikimedia Commons not accepts fair use. Some Wikipedia projects do allow it. --Martin H. (talk) 21:53, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
My question is still not answered. What I want to know is why this is accepted and has a fair-use rationale and my own Sims 3 screenshot doesnt? Please tell me how to get my screenshots accepted. Cadiomals (talk) 21:55, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
You link to Wikipedia. You are here on Wikimedia Commons. Thats different projects. --Martin H. (talk) 21:56, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
I think I understand. I looked around Wikipedia and figured out you can upload images directly on to it instead of having to upload to Commons first. I hope that works. Cadiomals (talk) 22:04, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Picture deleted.

Hello, I don't know where you're from and which languages you speak so I'll leave three versions for you. Salut, Je ne sais pas d'où tu es, donc je vais laisser trois langues. Hola, no sé de donde seas así que te dejaré esto en tres versiones de idiomas.

So, I Uploaded these images and they were free I saw them on internet and the authors didn't care about their copyright, what am I suposed to do if I got no idea about their copyright, I could just lie and say it was my job, as many in here, but I didn't so please I'd like some help to know what to do in this case, because this files are really important, another thing is that I can't use them anymore in wikimedia commons and even if I try ti re-upload they just don't work. Should I delete them and then upload them again?, and how?.

Donc, J'ai chargé des photos pour vous et je n'ai pas fait attention au copyright, donc mes images ont été eliminés, je ne sais pas qu'est-ce que je dois faire parce que c'est très important pour moi avoir les photos dans ses places. je dois les charger unauttre foix? Common?

Bueno, pues mis imagenes las descargue de una página libre el problema es que no sé como expresarlo en wikipedia, es muy importante para mi la edición de estos artículos con estas imágenes entonces por favor ayuda con esto necesito subirlas otra vez? o qué?, porque no puedo utilizarlas supongo que por lo del copyright, que debo hacer? de verdad significan mucho para mi.

Estoy seguro que son libres, mas no sé como expresarlo en wikipedia

I think you not know what free means. Just because something is published does not mean that is free to copy or redistribute and it also not means that the copyright holders not care. Content on Commons must be free content, permission from the copyright holder must be given to publish a work under a free content license. --Martin H. (talk) 23:17, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Ok, so Acordding to you Mr. Martin, what am I suposed to do?, send an email to the guy who created and then what?, why don't I just lie about the copyright, please, but seriously what do you want me to do, I really need these pics where they were, and actually one of these pics, and the most important, is in a forum where everybody can take it, even the author of the picture offered it saying something like, "take it, it was your turn to have a collage from your city..." it says NOTHING about copyright and guess what? she's the same author of many of your files and just because they lied or I don't know what the uploaders did, you didn't take them off. So in conclusion she's the same author of many of the files in wikipedia, is that enough for you?

Its not required to indicate copyright with publication to enjoy copyright protection. Copyright is granted by law and subsists in Mexico (right?) for the authors lifetime and 100 years following the authors death. You must ask the copyright holder for permission to a free content license. Or you must search for pictures available under free content licenses. Or - its pictures of buildings so this cant be so difficult - you must create photos yourself. --Martin H. (talk) 23:29, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

This is a great job, don't think I could make one like that, so is there any other way to upload these same pictures?, and in any case as wikipedia does with the images created by yourself, I'm sure the website where they came from must do the same somehting like "I'm ____ and I make this content free to..." so what do I do mate? if it doesn't say anything about it... and why are there pictures by the same author and they're still there? how did they get it? don't you think if it's the same author it's the same permission?. I know extactly where these files by the same author are in wikipedia, I could give you a link.

If you not know the copyright holder then there is nothing you can do. Other people making bad things on Wikimedia Commons (i.e. uploading someone else work with wrong claim of own work) isnt an excuse to do the same. Such bad uploads should be tagged with {{copyvio|this file is not the uploaders work but taken from XY}}. --Martin H. (talk) 23:38, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

I am not here to tell you where there are these images, I mean come on!, What if I mention the creator, give the EXACT link for the original source and the name of the person?, I am PRETTY sure MOST of the images on wikipedia are FAKE, or tell me! do you think someone can go to the space and take a picture? or they could ask it to the NASA? "hello NASA I'll upload them to wikipedia", It's not this way... anyway I'll try to take my own photos, (or lie as EVERYONE in here), but an advice; you should try to help the people instead to taking files off and not giving any solution. THANKS...

The scope of Commons is to collect free content. Content free to reuse by anyone, anywhere for any purpose including money making purposes.
We not want stolen photos and we not want content uploaded with false information and without agreement by the copyright holder. Thats the scope of Commons, thats the spirit of free content, and thats was the FREE Encyclopedia is all about! We not go to change this because you want some photos of cities. And yes, NASA content is free of copyrights by law (Title 17, Chapter 1, Section 105 of the US Code). --Martin H. (talk) 23:49, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Nice dude, nice laws lesson, so anyway I'll do what the others do, thank you, you made my edited article to be ugly, I'll try to fix them. I don't even know why this chat or talk exists it doesn't help anyone you'll win anyway. (such as everyone above) thank you.

Sorry to ask, but...

Are you like stalking me and the photos which I upload? Gunter retracted his permission, but pongboy's permission still stands and Tad gave me permission to use 2 of his mamba pictures - the one with the black mamba striking and displaying the inside of its mouth and the other one, which YOU DELETED - the one with the black mamba eating. Why did you delete a picture which I had permission to use on wikipedia under creative commons license? Bastian (talk) 01:41, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

I commented in the section above. For the other picture in en:Naja nigricollis which was used in that article already before you decided to join this project: regretably its not only you who make false claims of own work (your first upload), false claims on the copyright holder (your second upload with false statement that some "Peter Hutch" is the photographer) or false claim on permission (your third upload and repeated info that you got permission from Günter that you never got). Also other people do this wrong, and such files got deleted. --Martin H. (talk) 01:43, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

The signature

[8] I talked to a librarian friend of mine on staff with a physical copy and she stated that the name was Swain J, i.e. the engraving firm of Joseph Swain that would make plates for magazines to put images just like that. That is why there is no credit. It was most likely an in house photograph that was sent out to have a plate made so it could be published. Ottava Rima (talk) 04:05, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

[9] Illustrated London News was a later name for the English Illustrated Magazine. The signature is not that of the original maker of the image but merely the engraver to allow the photograph to be printed. Will you drop the statement with this proof that the original artist is unknown? Ottava Rima (talk) 04:09, 25 December 2011 (UTC)
Enter the name in the author field and never add "unknown" where the "unknown" not reflects common knowledge but your own not (yet) knowing. Wikimedia Commons is a multiplier of such false facts, and thats not good for this project. --Martin H. (talk) 13:15, 25 December 2011 (UTC)
The author is still unknown. That is an engraver's marker and only an engraver's marking. It is on many images in that magazine credited to others and signed by others. This is still PD-Unknown in the UK. As I said, the index/title pages would list the credits if there were any. This was most likely an in-house photo by the magazine itself and not an outsider, hence the lack of an author and the copyright being owned by the magazine itself (just like it would own all of the engraving rights). Ottava Rima (talk) 13:49, 25 December 2011 (UTC)
'in-house' limits the number of possible authors to a small number, maybe consulting an employees list or a comperative analysis of similar photos of that time bring clearity. Other forms of enquiry, legal instructions suggest to ask the publisher or successors, are maybe impracticable. Sure the painter or photographer was not unknown to the magazine at the time creation of this magazine. No efforts made to go as far to the point when the author became unknown. The "still unknown" maybe is a usefull simplyfication for yourself, but its nothing you should divulge as a historic fact. --Martin H. (talk) 14:21, 25 December 2011 (UTC)
In the UK, "in-house" means 70 years after the publication unless a definite author is given credit. PD-Unknown in the UK applies to companies and was mostly done for that reason. Even if you found out who actually took it does not give them copyright rights in the UK. "Unknown" does not mean "no way to ever know" but that there cannot be a legal attribution of copyright to a specified individual for various reasons. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:17, 25 December 2011 (UTC)
I think you are to much focused on copyright. My issue is how users on Commons invent things or make assumptions and write them down like facts. If you write "unknown<ref>because I...</ref>" is one thing, but dictating assumptions or impressions to the whole world as facts without acknowledging the limited validity of the information is a giant problem of this project. --Martin H. (talk) 15:29, 25 December 2011 (UTC)
Authorship under UK law would demand this be deemed unknown because of the lack of credit in a copyrighted work, which puts the work under the magazine's credit. It isn't about dictating assumptions but following legal standards as is part of Commons policy. Please read up on the UK law about what "unknown" means regarding authorship. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:32, 25 December 2011 (UTC)
Given that a part of the work, the engraving, is identified your comment is just laughable. Stop inventing facts just because you are unable to read something. --Martin H. (talk) 15:36, 25 December 2011 (UTC)
An engraving is not part of the work just like a scan is not. Your comments show a complete ignorance of what is going on. The engraver is merely the printer who put together the specific print image for the magazine. They don't receive copyright on such matters just like a printer is not part of a copyright. You can say my comment is laughable, but your statement is ignorant and in violation of both legal code and how we operate on Commons. Let me be serious - if you refuse to accept it, then that is a serious problem that will need you to be dealt with because there is absolutely no reason for you to hold such a dangerous and absolutely inappropriate idea and it needs to stop. Ottava Rima (talk) 00:28, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
And again, you are to much focused on copyrights. My original comment and all ongoing comments is about your claim "the signature is indecipherable". You create fake facts because you are unable to read something, unable to get a better scan or you realy think that for you the google scan is the authoritative version and that you are not beholden to go to a library and check a different version to see what is realy written there before manipulating history? My simple reupload shows you, that your argumentation "the signature is indecipherable" is a lazy argument, there should be no place on Commons for arguments like that. --Martin H. (talk) 00:35, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
My original claim was that the signature did not matter. The only thing about decyphrability was to prove that the signature did not matter, which I went to great lengths to verify beyond a doubt what I already knew and already proved by showing other examples from the same magazine where the signature was used along with other people being credited. And I did go to a library to get it checked and to verify what I already knew. The illustrators are always given true credit. That is what matters. Merely being signed does not mean someone has a copyright claim to a work or was the creator. It isn't laziness but fact. Ottava Rima (talk) 00:57, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
I see no reason to argue here if you now also try to change the meaning of your original comment. I not believe you that you checked for the signature and the possibility that maybe in this case it gives the author of the work. Your first comment shows me that the google scan is the only version you checked and that you really believe that not being able to read something on a particular scan is reasonable enuiry. But this all doesnt matter anymore, with a new upload the signature became decipherable and the case is resolved. You by the way should work on your relation to engraving, I not like your pejorative description of this kind of artistic works. --Martin H. (talk) 01:21, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
There is a clear reason to argue - a bad faith nomination. If someone questions a signature on an item, they ask. Signatures have never proven ownership of copyright, especially when -anyone- could add -any- marking to an image, especially an upload. The front matter alone should have been enough to warrant that this was not an individual's copyright but the magazine's copyright, which by definition is PD Unknown and 70 years after the image taken becomes PD. The British law was designed exactly for this example. And you can believe all you want, but you proven that you had no clue about the British law or understood what you are talking about. The signature was proven to not matter and you have not apologized for your zeal in promoting something that was clearly wrong when proven beyond a doubt there was no reason to think it could be copyrighted. Ottava Rima (talk) 03:37, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for fixing the tags on the C.M. Russell paintings. I suck at getting the templates correct. Much appreciated! Montanabw (talk) 03:34, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

file deleted???

Could you please explain to me why you deleted the file Noah Mills? It had an OTRS pending flag and the ticket number is 2011120210019022. I forwarded the letter of consent from the photographer on December 2. No action on your part since then. If you do not have time to process incoming mail, that should not be my problem! Teeemurrr (talk) 12:16, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

You not gave any information under what free license the copyright holder(s) agreed to publish this file. The option you selected in the upload form was "Upload this file without copyright information for now. I understand this file may be deleted". To what license did they agree? --Martin H. (talk) 12:27, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
Quote from the email: «I agree to publish that work under the free license "Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0" (unported).» Teeemurrr (talk) 13:24, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
Restored and added this. --Martin H. (talk) 13:26, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
Thanks! When is the letter of consent going to be processed? Could you do it personally or speed it up somehow? Or is there a separate team working on it? Teeemurrr (talk) 13:41, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
separate. --Martin H. (talk) 14:01, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Delete

Please, delete File:EPMJMAF.jpg, File:Fachada da Fundação.jpg and File:Monsenhor João Maurício de Amaral Ferreira.jpg. Thanks.--Rafael Wiki (talk) 12:46, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Martin, please...

I know this is very ironic, but I do need your help. They have set a totally free of copyright image up for speedy deletion, I contested it but I thought I may need your help. It is this image right here. It comes from the Dutch Tropenmuseum. This is the source website here and this is what I told them when I contested the speedy deletion:

This file should not be speedy deleted as corrupt or empty, because it comes from a Dutch museum website and it is listed as a free public domain image. If you go to the website here and check it out. The Tropenmuseum, part of the Royal Tropical Institute, exclusively provides images that are either made by its own staff, or that are otherwise free of copyright. This image is totally free of copyright. Please check into it and don't delete it. Deleting it would be a travesty as it would be deleting a perfectly free of copyright image that is of good use on Wikipedia.

This image has been on Wikipedia for a long time and it is a totally free image. I hope you can do something to help. Thanks. Bastian (talk) 17:48, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Also, Martin look here. This image is free of copyright. Bastian (talk) 17:59, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

en:File:COLLECTIE TROPENMUSEUM Gifslang 'Naja tripudianus sputatrix TMnr 10006447.jpg is an empty local (en.wp) file description page for a file on Commons, en:WP:CSD#F2 or F8. --Martin H. (talk) 18:03, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

What does that mean? It is a free of copyright image, correct? Bastian (talk) 18:06, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

The file is on Commons, the file description is on Commons and transcluded to English Wikipedia. There however also is a file description with no content localy on English Wikipedia, that empty file description page is uneccessary and subject to a speedy deletion request. The deletion of the unecessary empty description page on Wikipedia has no effect on the file on Commons. It is free, yes. But, to be more exact, its not free of copyrights or public domain. The Tropenmuseum presumably inherited the copyright and published the file under a license that allows free reuse. --Martin H. (talk) 18:14, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

So can we use the picture or not? This is very difficult. In the spring I am going to Kentucky's famous Reptile Zoo, which houses every possible cobra species, all mamba species, the king cobra, and over 150 species of venomous snakes and take my own pictures. Bastian (talk) 18:29, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Sure, en:WP:CFD#F2 deals with an empty page on Wikipedia, not with the media file on Commons. It deals with this page that you originally created. --Martin H. (talk) 18:32, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

So I can use it? What do I do? Please tell me. Bastian (talk) 19:42, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Copyright

What do I do if the copyright holder isn't named? Can I credit the website?--TheShadowCrow (talk) 19:21, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

If the organization owning the website is the copyright holder and published the file under a free license, yes. --Martin H. (talk) 19:22, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

File:Göth Feb 8, 1943.jpg and File:Göth1941.jpg

Both images have the Schutzstaffel as an author source because that is the source of the images. File:Göth Feb 8, 1943.jpg image is out of my personal collection and has the proper licensing and the File:Göth1941.jpg image is past it's 70 European copyright date so it properly licensed and can be used. I changed the author, was that the problem? And do you feel it is resolved now that I changed it?~ Folklore777 (talk) 15:58, 26 December, 2011 (UTC)

70 years from publication counted from the next 1st January following the year of publication. Provide a source of publication. --Martin H. (talk) 21:26, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
I put an author, but I'm the source. You want me to put "Folklore777" as the source? The images are from my personal collection. I don't know what more you want from me?Folklore777 (talk) 15:58, 26 December, 2011 (UTC)
You got the image from somewhere, you not created it. So the source is the publication which made it possible that today you have a copy of it. That source is required, it must be anonymous without disclosure of the original creator. --Martin H. (talk) 21:48, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
Yes, years ago, the image came from Amon Göth's daughter, they are of her personal images that I was given permission to be used for education purposes. And for years, I have been donating the 1943 image for education Holocaust research. The File:Göth Feb 8, 1943.jpg image is a personal photo done by Göth himself for a promotion during the war. I suppose he would be the ultimate source. But I didn't just "find" the image somewhere. I wouldn't have posted the 1943 picture otherwise. As far as the "File:Göth1941.jpg", you can delete it, I have no use for it now.~ Folklore777 (talk)17:04 , 26 December, 2011 (UTC)
If it is done by Göth himself - unlikely - the copyright will expire in 2017, 70 years following the death of the author. If it was published under an unidentifiable pseudonym (of the photographer) or anonymously the copyright will expire in 2014. --Martin H. (talk) 22:12, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Göth paid someone to come take the Military photo for a promotion he was trying to seek in Feb of 1943, according to his daughter. No one knows who the author is, no one ever will, because Göth is dead. She donated the image, that she has the copyright for, and your telling me it can't be used until 2014? Doesn't make sense. I know the copyright is proper on it. If it makes you feel better to delete an educational image regarding the Holocaust, then go ahead, it's not worth fighting you about it.~ Folklore777 (talk)17:24 , 26 December, 2011 (UTC)

Sure, copyright belongs to the author even if the author is unknown and lasts the authors lifetime and 70 years thereafter. And we talk about free content here, thats not only educational use but free reuse, worldwide, also for commercial purposes. --Martin H. (talk) 22:29, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
I got help from another administrator and he seemed to be sweet. I explained the issue and he stated on my Folklore777 Wikipedia talk page that the photo could possibly stay up and listed what to do on his Wikipedia talk page under Seraphimblade. If I make these corrections, is it possible to keep the photo up? I even copied the conversation to my talk page and he left a message underneath our conversation there.~ Folklore777 (talk) 00:10 , 27 December, 2011 (UTC)
Stop flagging the photo Martin. I got the right stuff on there according to another administrator. I'll put the whole discussion under the talk page on the photo. ~ Folklore777 (talk) 07:47 , 27 December, 2011 (UTC)
I think you not understand the problem, but instead try to evade it. There is nothing to evade, not with jumping from project to project, uploading here and there and wherever against all processes. Simply wait for 3 years and upload it in 2014 when it is public domain. Thats all you can do. There is no hurry, the article will still be fine for another 3 years. --Martin H. (talk) 13:01, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm not trying to evade the problem, I received help from someone at the same level as you because I wanted to see if there was anyway to use the photo. If the other administrator would said no, wait until 2014, then I still wouldn't be fighting you now, honest. But he stated that the photo was in the public domain, it is as clear as day under my main talk page under Wikipedia:

"I researched this a bit, and left my interpretations for you as a response on my talk page. I believe this image actually is in the public domain, according to Commons' matrix on the matter, since it was published without copyright notice at a time when that was a required formality. Seraphimblade Talk to me 04:13, 27 December 2011 (UTC)".

I don't wish to argue about this any further, and normally I would give in. But I have rights to the photo, and was given permission to use it. I'm not sure why you want it down so badly.~ Folklore777 (talk) 07:47 , 27 December, 2011 (UTC)

Guy, this is not a fight or a hierarchy.... You claim various things without providing evidence: you claim the photographer is polish. Is he? Evidence? Thats essential. And I already said it: You have a copy of the photo in your ownership, thats it. You have NO intelectual property rights over it, you have zero copyrights and, unless the file is public domain, you have zero rights to reproduce it outside your given rights to reproduce it for educational purposes under quotation rights or fair use- but thats regretably something that is not allowed on Commons which is free for commercial purposes too. I not "want it down so badly", im convinced that it is a blatant infringement of international copyrights and that you offer something here for commercial reuse that is protected by copyrights and not free content. This project is a free content project. --Martin H. (talk) 13:15, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
Wow, this photo has you upset? And, um, relax, it's just a Nazi photo, I have others I can put up passed the 70 year mark, like the other one you flagged "File:Göth1941.jpg". I'll use that one in 5 days or so. I just want to clarify the background of the image. The photo probably is under the "Das Bundesarchiv" given that most likely used in his file. And most likely taken by a German, who knows. The Polish license was used because the photo was taken in Poland, that's it. Go ahead, delete the photo Martin.~ Folklore777 (talk) 07:47 , 27 December, 2011 (UTC)


Pull your bloody head in, mate.

Do you have any understanding of New Zealand crown copyright laws? Those badges of Royal New Zealand Air force squadrons I put up ARE COMPLETELY LEGAL! You are a pretentious, picky and you do nothing to contribute to wikipedia other than be a smart-arse. Pull your head in.~ Luke96241 (talk) 06:44 , 28 December, 2011 (UTC)

Ehm, yes. It was actually you who described this logos as "this image is subject to copyright, its use is covered by the U.S. fair use laws". I relied on what you said. Fair use or any such fair use rationals is forbidden on Commons. --Martin H. (talk) 13:40, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

REPARADOR

Eres un idiota en borrar mis contribuciones y mis archivos subidos, es obvio que yo mismo los tomé, y tu crees que son bajados de internet, ya que dices que estan protegidos por derechos de autor, que vas a hacerme? bloquearme? --REPARADOR (talk) 23:37, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

You uploaded a photo of a poster. You have no rights on the poster, you can not reproduce it. --Martin H. (talk) 13:38, 28 December 2011 (UTC)


License problems

Hi Martin, I've left a message for you about these issues here. Sorry, but it was easier for me to explain all of this in German. Regards Mar del Sur (talk) 23:40, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Ich schau mal auf de.wp. --Martin H. (talk) 12:32, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Alles Gute im Neuen Jahr und auf dass Dein Panzer dir erhalten bleibe

Wenn ich deine Diskussionsseite durchlese, wird mir immer schlecht. So viele dumm-bösartige Nachrichten erhält auf Commons wohl nur einer. Ich hoffe dass es dir auch im neuen Jahr leicht fällt, diese zu ignorieren oder dass sie dich zumindest kalt lassen. Im richtigen Leben wünsche ich Dir natürlich auch viel Glück. -- RE rillke questions? 00:27, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Danke, dir auch ein frohes Neues Jahr. --Martin H. (talk) 12:32, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Okay, finally...

I have found a Flickr user who said that he would be I quote "Honored" to have his pictures used on wikipedia. I told him to make an account himself and upload them as that would save both of me and him a lot of trouble. If he declines to make an account and says for me to use them I am going to upload them. You can contact him here. My real name is Francis and I e-mailed him as such. So ask him if you gave a Wikipedian member named Francis permission to use it under creative commons license (I told him about the commercial use and everything). So when I upload it, you will know that I got permisssion. Contact him. Bastian (talk) 02:31, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

He made a username himself and uploaded a Chinese cobra picture. This one right here. Bastian (talk) 15:19, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
Fine. --Martin H. (talk) 12:32, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Help

Everytime I try and send an e-mail requesting permission, it says an error happend and cancels.

Can you or somebody else please help me to request copyright permission for my photos? --TheShadowCrow (talk) 21:43, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

I cant help you if you have problems with your email client. --Martin H. (talk) 12:32, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

File:EH20090615003.jpg

The photograph deleted was provided by the owner Technical University of Munich on behalf of vice president Arndt Bode for publication on Wikipeda. Permission of the photographer was also granted. Isn't that enough? --Gernheim (talk) 10:47, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Siehe Deine Benutzerdiskussion [10]. --Martin H. (talk) 15:40, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Ada Bridge, universary

Well, could we save , it is image of public use, with no restriction, no ban and no explicit permit(public day-to-day commons). Please see Ada_Bridge

I would ask you yet only for File:Branko Miljkovic.jpg having personal and biographical connections with this poet, it is scan image of unknown photographer used widely, and it is anonymous as it appears (some photo shop from Naissus), could You suggest some way to preserve? Ada Bridge is reflection of Obelisk of Constantine Hippodrome in Sirmium, and I recognized possibility of marking Pope Callixtus III(12/31) in establishing Transfiguration to memorize 1456. Pisanje (talk) 17:55, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

There is no legitimation to use this file, it is full of restrictions. For the first see the terms of service of the website - terms that you agreed to when visiting the website: 24 sata online ima autorska prava na sve sadržaje (tekstualne, vizuelne i audio materijale, baze podataka, programerski kod). Neovlašćeno korišćenje bilo kog dela portala i E-24 sata, bez dozvole vlasnika autorskih prava, smatra se kršenjem autorskih prava 24 sata online i podložno je tužbi. (Quote from Uslovi korišćenja in [11]). That has nothing to do with free content. This is a free content project... --Martin H. (talk) 18:28, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Immagini Rosalia Porcaro e Ludmilla Radchenko

Buonasera,

ti scrivo anzitutto per salutarti e sapere come stai, oltre a questo per comunicarti che non ho copiviolato niente...le immagini sono state cedute dalla Radchenko in quanto di sua proprietà ad usum wikipediae e affini e la stessa cosa riguarda quelle della Signora Porcaro, però dalla sua Agenzia Manageriale, di cui ho avuto ben 4 colloqui telefonici, detto questo se posso rimediare agli eventuali pastrocchi fammi sapere appena puoi, ho altre foto a disposizione che sono libere e cedute con tutto il cuore. grazie e a buon rendere--Lodewijk Vadacchino (talk) 13:46, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Not write your own name in the author field if you are not the author. Provide written permission from the copyright holder, buying a copy of the image is not enough to publish it under a free license (Art. 107, 109 and 110 of Italian copyright law). Permission ad usum wikipediae is insufficient. --Martin H. (talk) 13:53, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

File:MarcosBebado.jpg

Hi Martin, This file is very offensive. And the goalkeeper Marcos is a great man in Brazil. See this problem, please? Thanks, DanteCan (talk) 01:23, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Its a copyright violation anyway --Martin H. (talk) 11:52, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

User Shawnee: wellcome back

Look here. User is back and still uploading non-free image. In Russian Wikipedia she is banned to upload files. Please do something. Thanks a lot.--Forwhomthebelltolls (talk) 01:52, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Re:File tagging File:Vicar by Diego Jourdan.jpg

-->Esta imagem foi retirada da en-wiki e como projeto da mediawikia, deve possuir a mesma licença Gerson Nunes Pereira (talk) 20:11, 5 January 2012 (UTC)


-->This image was taken from en-wiki project and as MediaWiki, should have the same license Gerson Nunes Pereira (talk) 20:11, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

  • Unfortunately due to difficulties in language, can not do anything. If the images in this en-wiki, why can not you stay here?

If no help, then you can clear. Gerson Nunes Pereira (talk) 20:15, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

The uploader of en:File:Vicar by Diego Jourdan.jpg uploaded it under a wrong license. His intention was to upload it under fair use (which is now fixed), however this the change to fair use on Wikipedia makes it unsuitable for Commons. --Martin H. (talk) 11:49, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Re: Files

It is false that the images are captured. Remove the checkmark from elimination. Tiago Abreu, Brazil. 186.199.156.118 15:52, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Images of "Nahr Beyrouth" or the Beirut river) deleted

Excuse me Mr. Martin H. but why did you delete my pictures of the Beirut river (Nahrbeyrouth.jpj; Nahrbeyrouth2.jpg)? Is there a copyright on the satellite images posted on Google Earth? Isn't it a public domain?????????

There is a copyright. When using google earth you agreed to terms of service. I strongly recomand you to read them and to compare if a reuse as required here is acceptable for Google. See Commons:Project scope#Required licensing terms. --Martin H. (talk) 14:51, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Chinese cobra image

This image here: File:Chinese cobra.jpg was uploaded by user "Fearingpredators" listing it as his "own work". It is in fact, Guenter's image, remember him? Fearingpredators stole that image. Bastian (talk) 20:37, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

FYI

I believe you were involved with checkusering the user requesting an unblock at Commons:Administrators'_noticeboard/User_problems#Dear_administrators. Please feel free to comment there. cheers, Rd232 (talk) 02:20, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Findest du …

die Quelle? Grüße, --Polarlys (talk) 23:17, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Nein, nochmal gesucht aber nichts gefunden. --Martin H. (talk) 23:25, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Wird User:FlickreviewR/bad-authors eigentlich noch verwendet oder muss das manuell noch irgendwo eingebunden werden? --Polarlys (talk) 10:18, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Die Liste wird gelegentlich von COM:QFI aktualisiert. --Martin H. (talk) 04:07, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Busraalvan

Hi Martin! Have you seen any activity from Xraykan lately? Until just recently, it had been a while since I saw anything, but Busraalvan (talk • contribs • Luxo's • SUL • deleted contribs • logs • block user • block log ) is quacking pretty loudly. There's the similarity in username to confirmed sockpuppet Büşra Alman, the editing of Demet Akalın (which was created by confirmed sockpuppet Küb10), and the interest in Gülçin Ergül, whose article on Turkish Wikipedia has also been edited by confirmed sockpuppets Eyl10, Küb23, Küb14 and several other socks. I thought I'd run this by you first since I know you're familiar with the case, but if you think I should take it elsewhere, let me know. —LX (talk, contribs) 17:44, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Technically its likely that Busraalvan is a sock. Account creation on Commons is another clue. But im puzzled by the strange SUL behaviour with SUL for example on incubator, there are other users within the bounds of technical possibility with the same strange SUL behaviour who are likely unrelated because of no behavioural evidence and/or no contributions at all. Is the SUL-behaviour different for tr.wp users? I saved a list of this possible 'sleeper' accounts. --Martin H. (talk) 04:02, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

¿Violación de Copyright?

Hola Martín, siento mucho no poder escribirte en inglés. Espero tengas bien en servirte de algún traductor en caso de no saber español. Hoy he notado que marcaste varias de las fotos por mí subidas y vinculadas al artículo Club Social y Deportivo Madryn, como "violaciones del copyright", ¿podrías ser tan amable de explicarme en qué aspectos dichas fotos, que ya fueron eliminadas, violaban alguna licencia? Me apena mucho puesto que fueron fotografías tomadas por mí y te agradecería que me explicaras qué condiciones infringían, para así poder subirlas correctamente, dado que hasta donde sé, tenía todo el derecho de publicarlas al ser fruto de mi propio trabajo.

Muchas gracias.

Aurinegro Patagónico

Permission

Okay, so if I got permission to use this image File:Equatrorial-spitting-cobra 001.jpg, would I just forward the e-mail to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org. Permission is in the format put forth here: Wikipedia:Declaration of consent for all enquiries. Is this acceptable? Also, I talked to you about this file: File:Chinese cobra.jpg. It says it is the "own work" of "fearingpredators", which I know is not because that is Günter's image on Flickr. I used it since you didn't do anything about it. I already have 2 Chinese cobra images uploaded by a guy from Flickr, so Günter's image is not needed and it is NOT the work of "fearingpredators". Bastian (talk) 19:49, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

yes, thats the required declaration of consent, also called permission. I cant confirm your info that this is one of Günters photos. --Martin H. (talk) 20:17, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Okay, then can you put a hold on the picture for permission coming. On the other matter, you may be right it may not be Günters photo, but I have seen this photo elsewhere either on a reptile forum or somewhere else on Flickr. "fearingpredators" is no longer editing because I debated with him strongly on both the black mamba article and the king cobra article. He used to edit articles with false information and he would write exaggerated claims from long ago or even myths as fact in the King cobra article. It was horrible. After I beat him in the debates, he stopped editing. At first, he began editing as an IP (after the debates he and I had) and then he stopped completely. I think he may occasionally still try to spread his misinformation through IP, but I catch it all the time. I keep a forest cobra myself, but it is still too young to take an impressive photo of it. I will be adding more snakes to my collection soon. Hopefully, a Cape cobra next. Bastian (talk) 21:05, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

I cant find the photos on white background, the photos with soil/grass background are very small, thas suspicious but I cant find them too. I indeed wonder if a chinese "king" cobra is a king kobra with a chinese passport or a blue-blooded chinese cobra, but Commons is full of such inaccuracy. --Martin H. (talk) 02:05, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Na, da mag dich aber jemand garnicht. Trotzdem noch ein gutes neues Jahr. Sollen wir die edit-summaries verstecken oder ist dir das egal? --Túrelio (talk) 22:16, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Lass ihn, ich bin mir Sicher, dass die Dateien eh gelöscht werden und damit auch die edit-summaries. Mit User:69.22.174.228 steht eh schon die nächste IP auf dem Plan den ich diesmal auch nicht revertieren werde da ein entfernen von LA's auf den Bildbeschreibungen eine recht innefektive Form des Vandalismus ist solange der LA bestehen bleibt. --Martin H. (talk) 02:05, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Please remove missing permissions tags

Per your instructions, I have written to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org with permissions for files CC-V1.jpg, CC-V2.jpg, and CC-V4.jpg. Please remove the missing permissions tags from these files.

Did the map source gave permission too? --Martin H. (talk) 18:59, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

I am the map source. I am the creator of these images.Keithpickering (talk) 00:09, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

I mean the base map, you are not on geco.net list. --Martin H. (talk) 14:15, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Gebco is not the creator of these maps. They maintain a database of bathymetry which is publicly available for public use, providing only that one gives credit. Which I did.Keithpickering (talk) 00:01, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

You created the topography from scratch? --Martin H. (talk) 12:31, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

What do you mean "from scratch"? Can you give me an example of a map created "from scratch"? Keithpickering (talk) 19:20, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Please refer to this map: File:Ancient Egypt map-en.svg which is a Featured Picture, considered one of the finest images. Author Jeff Dahl lists five sources for the information on his map, including copyrighted sources. Why is this map perfectly OK, and indeed a featured image, whereas my map is flagged for deletion for using sources? What's the difference here? Keithpickering (talk) 19:30, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Its not so difficult to create such a map, its only a few polygones. You can create such graphs easily in Inkscape or even in Power Point. Thats created from scratch. --Martin H. (talk) 22:01, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

And how do you know what the polygons are shaped like? And where the Nile runs? Do you go to Egypt with a theodolite? Or do you use other sources? Keithpickering (talk) 00:20, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Jeff Dahl says he used other sources. In other words, he didn't go to Egypt with a theodolite. So I repeat: why is his map allowed, and mine not? Keithpickering (talk)

The geopgraphic data - i.e. the points of the polygons - is not protected. The green area, the nile, thats all simple polygons drawn in inkscape. A complete topography graphic on the other hand is protected by copyright. --Martin H. (talk) 07:05, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

In that case, my maps are under my copyright and nobody else's. Please remove the missing permissions tags as I requested. Keithpickering (talk) 16:19, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

I think its up to you to describe how you created the topographic map. You said it comes from that source, it looks like it comes from that source, describe on the file description why it now not comes from that source. Or simply replace the file with a map without topography. --Martin H. (talk) 18:28, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Why do I have to provide such descriptions, while other topographical maps on Wiki do not? Why are you singling me out? Keithpickering (talk) 19:02, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

The burden of proof is with you, the uploader, you have to provide evidence that your map not includes unfree topograhical layers created by others. You source description suggest that this is not fulfilled. Providing description of creation is my suggestion to help you. --Martin H. (talk) 00:04, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

My source description suggests nothing of the kind. This issue has now been resolved to the satisfaction of OTRS. Since you are clearly unfamiliar with maps and how they are made, I suggest that in the future you refrain from flagging maps for deletion. Keithpickering (talk) 17:25, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Certainly not. Im not the only user who is unconvinced with your description and im not the only user who has some doubt in your reliability. Since you refuse to simply describe how you created the topography - 1 minute description instead of many minutes talking and talking and talking - I stay with this doubt. --Martin H. (talk) 19:01, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Robert Sennecke pictures

Hello, Martin H, it could be some (maybe most, I am not going to argue about the amount) of the pictures from Sennecke are wrongly attributed at the Bibliotheque national de France (the place were I got the pictures from) but, anyhow, it is not "horrible", at most they are wrong, a mistake. Horrible is the famine in Somalia, let us give things their right importance and do not dramatize, this is not a tragedy. At most the files will get deleted, I will have wasted quite a lot of my spare time and wikipedia will not be able to use the pictures, that's it. But let us all breath deeply, keep calm and see what needs to be done...Rowanwindwhistler (talk) 05:41, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

the files are not credited to Sennecke, they are credited as distributed by the company, its you who switched this to the person. For most sennecke (company) and sennecke (person) photos it will be possible to find out authors, just contact the archives who hold the collections. Thats information you will regretably not find online, buts its damn neccessary to get such information to establish the PD claim in the first place. You simply ignored your burden to do the research, uploaded with false facts. And now leave the category behind you with all the mess? --Martin H. (talk) 18:57, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
I may be mistaken but I think you are taking an error as a sort of planned sabotage... I may have rushly misread the photographer for its company, granted. I took the BNF statement of PD as correct and it ended up being wrong, ok. But I did not ignore any burden, you are jumping to conclusions and do not have the slightest idea of what crossed my mind at the time, so be kind enough to mind your manners. I simply trusted the BNF's statement and misread it. End of the story. And I am not saying the category has to be left in any mess (when did I say that?), I am saying that the adjective "horrible" is out of place here, the situation is not horrible, it may be simply disorganized and, at most, all that is needed is to say I made a mistake when uploading the files, ask some kind administrators to delete them and the category goes back to what it used to be, mess gone. But you seem to take this as a sort of world tragedy and it was simply a mistake (a mistake that took me hours of voluntary, unpaid and well-meant work, by the way). So kindly do what you think is correct but CALM DOWN and do me the favour to try avoiding sentences such as You simply ignored your burden to do the research, uploaded with false facts. I made a mistake (misread the author) and uploaded the pictures, after much work, with INCORRECT facts. Simple as that.--Rowanwindwhistler (talk) 08:20, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Deleted Images

Hello there sir,

I would just like to ask, you have deleted the following images, due to no permission:

  • File:Hip_Hop_100_with_Company_logo.jpg
  • File:Hip Hop 100.jpg

However, I would just like to ask that you please undelete them as I am into works for the OTRS for the said images. If you will undelete the images, I could then put the OTRS pending tag.

Hi! This has nothing to do with my problems with images above. I would just like to inform you that I copied your User talk templates. I think it is very useful for me to use it. If you don't mind.--Renzoy16 (talk) 14:09, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
I will not support you with this flickr washing. --Martin H. (talk) 18:58, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Erin Bowman,jpg & Erin Bowman 2.jpg

Hi Martin H. I submitted the required forms for authorization of erin bowman.jpg and erin bowman 2.jpg last week. Do I need to resubmit them?" Thank You!

No, it will take some time. You however need to correct source and author, this is not self-portraits. --Martin H. (talk) 14:15, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Please delete

Hey Martin, please delete this file: File:Equatrorial-spitting-cobra 001.jpg as I do not have permission to use it. The reason is because the owner of the image sold the image and he thinks that he can't give permission himself. Otherwise, he said that I can use it but he doesn't know if he can give me permission himself because he sold it. So delete it. I don't have permission (well, I do but he isn't sure if it is legitimate because he sold the image). Bastian (talk) 15:32, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Why is it tagged as permission validated now? --Martin H. (talk) 22:01, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Photos

Bonjour Martin,

Vous m'avez laissé un message me disant que mes images violaient le droit d'auteur. Les images que j'ai mises sont celles de mes amis, notamment concernant Alex Dias, Eduardo Oliveira et Edmar Figueira, trois footballeurs brésiliens. Ce sont eux qui m'ont précisément permis de mettre ces images-là sur wikipédia. Comment puis-je prouver que j'ai obtenu leur permission ? Ce courrier est-il la seule solution ?

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Messages_type

Des images personnelles, j'en ai beaucoup d'autres. Merci d'avance,

Gauthinho


Read Carefully Martin H

Good afternoon, Martin H, I think you made ​​a mistake by eliminating the image File: Telenovela Aurora.jpg, that picture is of my authorship, please I want you to restore deleted image. ATT: Combateplus. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Combateplus (talk • contribs) 18:55, 17 January 2012‎ (UTC)

File:Aurora telenovela.jpg, fair use material is forbidden on Commons. --Martin H. (talk) 19:04, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Thank you

in this matter, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Scarlett Johansson (2011).jpg (related to mine, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Scarlett Johansson (2011) cropped.jpg), i want to thank you for your research. I was beginning to wonder how someone could claim "its posted to a site with claimed ownership of copyright" and thus end any discussion. I was sure this could be abused, and i was right. I am new to how files are uploaded to the commons, and i am glad that people are trying to be diligent in tracking down copyright abuse, especially when not blatant. To me, the image didnt look like a typical publicity image, just sort of a hunch. Mein Deutsch ist nicht zer gut, or i would write in german.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 02:56, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

I got permission

I uploaded the two files of the black mamba's which you deleted. The one with the black mamba eating File:d.polylepis eating.JPG and the other one with the snake striking File:d.polylepis strike.JPG. I got the proper permission in proper format and I have forwarded the e-mails for both images. So please don't delete them. Bastian (talk) 03:41, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Also, in regards to this file: File:Equatrorial-spitting-cobra 001.jpg - I originally got the permission, but then he said he wasn't sure because he sold it. However, he is the original copyright holder, so it wouldn't matter if he sold it or not. He said there was no talk of giving complete copyright to the buyer. He simply just sold the image without discussion regarding copyright or anything. So technically, he is still the copyright holder. I say we keep it unless something arises Bastian (talk) 03:42, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Your prior admin actions are mentioned

Please see Commons:Administrators'_noticeboard#Permission_to_upload_previously_deleted_file. You deleted the file, and blocked the sock, your input would be appreciated here. -- Cirt (talk) 17:44, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Just wanted to make sure this new request had nothing to do with the prior socking? -- Cirt (talk) 17:55, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

File:2002 laser-blue.jpg

Hi! This file was deleted because the uploader had uploaded a lot of copyvios. However, this file was transferred from en-wiki. Should it not be ok to restore and fix upload log? --MGA73 (talk) 19:03, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Its not an 'own work' file by that uploader, so why not. --Martin H. (talk) 20:01, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

User:Leebrandoncremer

It may be wise to just delete all this user's uploads - he started uploading quite a few copyvios a while back, then, when I called him on it, threw a hissy fit and left. Only to come back a bit later for the sole purpose of throwing another hissy fit and leaving again. -mattbuck (Talk) 22:29, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Almost exactly like what he just did to your userpage in fact. -mattbuck (Talk) 00:32, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
Some files are ok, rest can be tagged with subst:nsd in related groups (sorted by source claims of "Army/AF/Navy/NASA/Own" with no detailed source or without any evidence. --Martin H. (talk) 17:54, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Fotos

Estimado Martín H.

Las fotos pertenecen al Gobierno Municipal de la Ciudad de Mérida. Hay escudos de la Policía de Mérida y está bajo jurisdicción del Gobierno Mexicano, cómo lo puse en la Licencia. Las imágenes pertenecen al Gobierno Municipal de Mérida, a lo cual va para el Gobierno de México. Son Policías Municipales con el Logo y placa de Policía Mexicana. Avísame si puedo volver a subir las fotos. Jmagno1998 (talk) 23:41, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Derecho de Autor no se aplicará a los escudos, banderas o emblemas. This is not escudo, not bandera, not emblem. The answer is: NO. --Martin H. (talk) 23:44, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
Tú mismo lo haz dicho "Derecho de Autor no se aplicará a los escudos, banderas o emblemas. Los Policías disponían de un escudo, y el escudo era de la Policía Municipal de Mérida. El escudo es parte del Gobierno Mexicano, representa a la Policía Municipal sobre las demás Policías Municipales de otros municipios del país.
Guy, File:Escudo Mexico 2009.jpg is an escudo. A photo of a policeman is NOT a coat of arms, its a photo! --Martin H. (talk) 23:54, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
OK! I'm sorry. Thank you and have a nice day. Greetings from Mexico. Jmagno1998 (talk) 23:57, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Keman

Hallo! Da sind viele Bilder aus der angegebenen Quelle, in den EXIF-Daten steht der Name des Uploaders (obwohl das hier ja nicht mehr heißt …) Viele Grüße, --Polarlys (talk) 11:04, 21 January 2012 (UTC) PS: Achja: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Keman

Hab ich nicht drauf geachtet. --Martin H. (talk) 11:16, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Du bist fantastisch

Orrlingtalk 13:15, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

No more uploads in Commons!!!

It is very difficult to load images on the Commons without copyright problems. From now on, only work with Wikipedia, MediaWiki, MetaWiki, etc.. They are much less traumatic. I will not do anything here. Good luck to all who have patience and willingness to stick around. Regards. -- Fabsouza1 (talk) 17:20, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

No, it's very easy to upload without copyright problems, just don't upload photos you don't own. -mattbuck (Talk) 17:39, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
In that case a flickrvio. Happens. My first copyvio was a flickrvio too. A possible sollution is to contact the flickr user before using their work. --Martin H. (talk) 17:40, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Pieter Kuiper edit restrictions

As you were involved in the original discussion at Commons:Administrators'_noticeboard/User_problems/Archive_23#Pieter_Kuiper_.28yes_again.2C_what_a_surprise.29, I'm notifying you of the current discussion of the edit restriction Pieter Kuiper agreed to. See Commons:Administrators'_noticeboard/User_problems#Clarify_edit_restriction. Rd232 (talk) 23:05, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

HGM-25A Titan I Missile Sites

I made the map. What needs to be added ? Bwmoll3 (talk) 01:05, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Made the map based on what base map? --Martin H. (talk) 19:41, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

OTRS vs. full res

Hallo Martin, zu File:Vincent_Nichols.jpg: hast du in das Ticket hineingeschaut? Guandalug klebte das Ticket auf die Datei, als die hohe Auflösung schon da war. Ich weiß nun auch nicht mehr, wieso ich sie hochlud. Viele Grüße --Saibo (Δ) 03:23, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Da ich die Frage nicht kenne, die der Hochladende dem Rechteinhaber gestellt hat, muss ich davon ausgehen, dass er nach dem gefragt hat was er dann auch hochgeladen hat. --Martin H. (talk) 19:41, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Philipp Kirkorov 2011

Здравствуйте. Сегодня я отправила разрешение от правообладателей на электронную почту. Если нужно, я пришлю его Вам. Разрешение есть. Поэтому прошу не удалять это фото. Maria Nikolaeva (talk) 19:33, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

On File talk:Philipp Kirkorov 2011.jpg you write something of "использовании в Википедии". Please keep in mind that a permission for reuse in Wikipedia isnt enough. --Martin H. (talk) 19:43, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

File:1956 hungarians stalin head.jpg

Since your tagging of File:1956 hungarians stalin head.jpg as "no permission" seemed to me related to the previous listing of this image, I have changed it to a deletion request listing. See Commons:Deletion requests/File:1956 hungarians stalin head.jpg and comment there if you wish. Thank you. Cheers, -- Infrogmation (talk) 00:31, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

File:Narre Tod Mein Spielgesell 001.jpg

Hi, just a quick question. Why would his death date have anything to do with it? The image was published in the early to mid-1920s (I don't remember where the original site was with the information, it was on the page) and according to PD-Austria any photographs published prior to 1942 are PD. PD-Germany gives "a photographic work and 50 years have passed since the year of its publication" as being PD (which this passes, and means this would have been PD since the mid 1970s at the latest). Unless it was published in Hungary (once again, I'd need the original link to double check), it is PD; the EU law should not be able to grant new copyrights to images that have already fallen in the public domain. Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:09, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

The PD-Austria tag is not correct, ther term is 70 years pma, not 70 years from publication.
The German tag is badly translated and incorrect, the 2nd point not refers to photographic works in general but only "simple" photographs, Lichtbilder. Lichtbilder have a shorter protection, all other photgraphy also has 70 years pma. The separation between simple photographs and photographic works is the threshold of originality: lightning, camera position, position of the object. We obvioulsy not talk about a Lichtbild here but a Lichtbildwerk. So refering to the 2nd point of Template:PD-Germany is wrong, the correct point is no. 4 and it is not fulfilled.
Anyway, because of the implementation of 93/98/EWG the §137f UrhG retroactively extended the protection even of simple Lichtbilder, because it revives copyright if the work was still in copyright in any country of the EU. Thats Spain, as outlined in the U-Boot judgement. For that reason a short protection term for photos in Germany is written in the law, but non-existent in practice. --Martin H. (talk) 19:01, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

congrats

I don't mind you deleting my uploads, patrol. I'll do even better next time... :) Litev (talk) 22:03, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

I have permission to use this file.

The file in question:

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:WelicoRuss_concert_on_12-12-%2711.jpg

This is a picture of the band "WelicoRuss". I have express permission from the band's leader and copyright holder, Alexey Boganov, to use this image. I co-own and run their record label, and as their representative I have been asked to create their Wikipedia page for them. What do I need to provide in order for this image to be kept on the site? Any information is appreciated. Thank you.

Provide written permission from the copyright holder. Written permission must include free reuse by anyone for any purpose, a permission for Wikipedia is insufficient. --Martin H. (talk) 18:35, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Deleted Images: Aalen and RAMB IV

Hello, I would like to know why you have considered the images "Pfo Aalen.jpg" and "RAMB IV in fiamme.jpg" a copyright violation, and so deleted them.--Olonia (talk) 13:50, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Because the copyright of a >1941 photo not expired. See Wikipedia:Bildrechte#Alte Werke. --Martin H. (talk) 18:29, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
(I don't know German) but the "PD-Germany" template doesn't say that if the image "is a photographic work and 50 years have passed since the year of its publication" it is in Public Domain?--Olonia (talk) 11:58, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
Thats wrong, the term is 70 years from death of the photographer. See above #File:Narre Tod Mein Spielgesell 001.jpg. --Martin H. (talk)
So, if I don't know the identity of the photographer, but the date of taking of the photo, it will be PD-Germany 70 years after the shot? For example, the photo of the burning RAMB IV, taken on May 10th, 1942, will be PD-Germany since May 11th, 2012?--Olonia (talk) 13:34, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
No, January 1 2013. You however not even started trying to find out the author, some research in the archives will be required. --Martin H. (talk) 15:07, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
I have no way to make research in the archives: I only know that the photo was taken by a Luftwaffe's aircraft crewmember. When the photo will be PD, what kind of PD will I have to put? PD-Germany?--Olonia (talk) 11:40, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
PD-old. --Martin H. (talk) 11:41, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
OK. Two things again: 1) This rule (PD-Old for photographs by unknown author taken 70 years ago) is valid also for Great Britain and New Zealand? 2) Does exist a way to find the author of a photo, except for archive research that I cannot do?--Olonia (talk) 12:23, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
UK is similar, NZ is different, read the copyright laws or COM:L. A first step is always to ask the person who published the scan of the photo in the internet. The photo was not published on the internet originally, so it must come from some paper source, that paper source possibly is the key to find out who originally created it. --Martin H. (talk) 12:26, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
Ok, thanks. (For RAMB IV I had a book with that photo - I used an Internet one because of its better quality - but it only said it had been taken by a Lutfwaffe man).--Olonia (talk) 14:08, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

File Arbeit

Hallo Martin,

hilf mir bitte - Bild ist aus Familienbesitz der Fam. Barhel und sie hat Bild freigegeben- Bildeinordnung müüsste sein: 

 Wissenschaftler der DDR

Bitte kurzen Tip

Eberhard

The answer to your message

If I bought a file in the online store, and uploaded it here, it will be considered legal?—Артём Алтухов (talk) 17:00, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

No, buying a file online means you got a license that allows you to use the file for some purposes. It not allows you to grant others permission to reuse the file. To upload something on Commons anyone must have the permission to reuse the file, this means you have to buy one license for any human on this planet. --Martin H. (talk) 17:03, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Trigger trap pictures

Hi Martin, I got a notification that you have added a deletion tag to the pictures of trigger trap device. I have taken these images from a website. The inventor had given me the authority when I wanted to write an article on his device to take these pictures from his website and therefore I took it from there. How can I show the evidence of permission to prove that the inventor of this device has given me the authority to publish these pictures? As I am not very familiar with Wikiimedia therefore I was not able to get it right the first time. Sorry for that.
Inlandmamba (talk) 11:12, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

See the instructions on your page: The copyright holder must send written permission. --Martin H. (talk) 11:13, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

The permission was sent by the copyright holder on permissions-commons@wikimedia.org on January 29, 2012. Still those pictures haven't been restored. They got deleted even after sending the permission. Can you please restore them?
Inlandmamba (talk) 11:05, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Redundant categorization

I noticed you've undone a few of my edits to football player photos, but there's no need to categorize individual photos under "Player of Club x" categories if the subcategory for the player is already in that same category, per COM:OVERCAT. --Ytoyoda (talk) 22:19, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

There is a need to overcome that wrong categorization with adequate subsets. Collecting the related media files is a first step to not loose true information, this can temporarily result in overcat. --Martin H. (talk) 22:24, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
Not quite sure what you mean by "wrong categorization". You seem to be undertaking a pretty big task here but I have no idea what you're working towards. --Ytoyoda (talk) 22:48, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
Seriously, can you explain this "wrong categorization" business? Or at least point me to the task force that's undergoing this major overhaul in how we categorize footballers? --Ytoyoda (talk) 17:51, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
The "wrong categorization" is self-explanatory. Categories is a way to organize files, categories form a hierarchical structure. This hierarchy is broken. In an temporarily acceptable way as a makeshift. Whenever someone has time to restore the hierarchy and organize files hes invited to do so. --Martin H. (talk) 18:02, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
If I'm asking you about it, it's clearly not self-explanatory. I don't get why you're being so opaque about it. --Ytoyoda (talk) 00:14, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

how to upload a photo?

Hello, I have problem on http://zh.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E9%BB%83%E5%A6%83

This is about 黃妃.

I had use an offical photo from offical site. https://www.facebook.com/pages/%E9%BB%83%E5%A6%83/214908061862609

It's too difficult for me to understand the Copy Right issue. Any easy way to do it?

Tks.

( I can have the Right from the singer's manager, but we are not good at English.)

File:Capela do Porto.jpg

I think its time to delete this image based on good faith as Rillke writes. The DR is more than 7 days now. Thank you, --Leoboudv (talk) 02:51, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Strike

I was wondering you can strike the HD copy from both photos File:Tahrir Square attacks on April 9 2011.png and File:Burning amy vehicle.png. -- The Egyptian Liberal (talk) 03:27, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

subst

Hallo, du hast an einigen meiner Bilder den Lizenzbaustein gesubstet. Nicht,d ass mich das ernsthaft stört, nur aus neugier: warum? Ralf macht das m.W. immer so und muss dann nicht Änderungen (am layout oder so) nachträglich überall einbauen; deswegen hatte ich damit jetzt auch angefangen. Nachträgliche Lizenzänderung geht natürlich nicht, das ist mir klar. Grüße --Martina talk 23:20, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Du hattest den Baustein auf ca. 100 anderen Dateien auf meiner Beobachtungsliste mit subst eingefügt, ich dachte du hättest es bei den verbleibenden vergessen. --07:06, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

RfCU

Thank you for your support.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 10:59, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Why

Why
i own the rights to the picture i upploaded. Why did you flag it? Hakimbelarbi (talk) 22:27, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

why

Im a bit blind, didnt see i could leave a messahe this wat until now. I own the rights to the picture i just uploaded. We hired a photografher named Fredrik Hjerling to take it for us, but all rights belong to us....

I suggest you 1st provide true information on the file description, its not your own work and 2nd provide the copyright holders written permission to OTRS, see Commons:OTRS. --Martin H. (talk) 22:32, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

images

Martin H please delete the images i up loaded which were not my own !!

A barnstar for you!

The Admin's Barnstar
you're a great admin. Cormag100 (talk) 11:09, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Copyright (Notification of possible copyright violation for File:Cristina Cifuentes Cuencas.jpg)

Hello Martin:

I am writing in reference to your message of violation of copyright of a photograph. The picture is mine and I've uploaded to wikimedia to link to wikipedia Cristina Cifuentes , I am the author and given to Cristina Cifuentes photography for use in Wikipedia, just as she has uploaded on its website www.cristinacifuentes.es

I pray you give us the possibility to use this photograph on wikipedia, because we are not violating any copyright, it's my picture as I give the same rights for use in wikipedia. Please contact me to find a solution, thanks in advance. Ana Ramírez de Arellano — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ramirezdearellano (talk • contribs)

I suggest you first restrict yourself to one account, also User:Mariag1978 claimed this photo freely licensed (in fact it is not but commercial reuse and modification is restricted) and also User:Bligui and User:Cristinalvarez recently plagiarized unfree content related to the same person. If you try to promote PP de Madrid in Wikipedia, thats what I think you and the other accounts do, I suggest you to:
  • say this clearly
  • not give yourself random names of real people just to take away their photos
  • upload files with true information on source and authorship
  • befor uploading, ask the photographers if they agree that anyone can reuse their photo anywhere (not only "for use in Wikipedia") for any purpose including money making purposes
--Martin H. (talk) 14:21, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
I forgot User:Garciamaria78. And I emphazise my second point above: creating an account to claim someone else identity is extremly problematic. --Martin H. (talk) 14:28, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

No muerto (Imagen)

Buenos días. Al parecer me han eliminado la foto de Tom Wood y la de Vlad Tepes porque infringí derechos copyright. Bueno, si ustedes lo hacen es por el bien de Wikipedia, por eso no hay problema. Lo que sí me gustaría es que me ayuden a encontrar una imagen para poder subirla y que aparezca en el artículo de no muerto ya que llevo 3 días sin poder poner alguna.

De ahí en fuera, me disculpo por las molestias. Gracias, saludos y buenas vibras. Feliz día. Chefdematre 08:23, 2012-02-14 (GMT)

No muerto = undead, so why not just have a look in Category:Undead? --Martin H. (talk) 18:03, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

¡Excelente!, le doy gracias por su ayuda. He colocado la imagen de Varney el vampiro. Espero ya todo se encuentre correcto en el artículo. Chefdematre 17:30, 2012-02-14 (GMT)

Rita Levi Montalcini

The same day you put the image permission template on my talk, I send a copy of a written permission by owner to OTRS (permissions-commons@wikimedia.org) but to this day nothing, the request is still on hold. It would be better to attend the practice before the image is deleted.--Johnny Freak (talk) 15:05, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

All your files

All your images 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 gallery, 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.

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!
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 ∙ +/−

Ian Streeter (talk) 21:27, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Block user

Please block Basstards (talk | contributions)? It is a violation of usernames, it attacks and threatens other people --Ian Streeter (talk) 21:30, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Category:Clockworks from Mexico

Hallo Martin H.!

kannst du bitte die Category:Clockworks from Mexico in Category:Turret clocks in Mexico umbenennen. Rest mache ich schon selbst. Danke --Karel K. (talk) 06:49, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Hallo Martin H.! Bitte jetzt nur noch die Kat löschen. Rest ist inzwischen umgelagert. Gruß --Karel K. (talk) 21:08, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Jerry ist wieder da

Special:Contributions/HIMYF und das auch noch mit sdo eindeutigen URVs: File:Freddy Krueger from nightmare on Elm Street.jpg. Gruß, Seewolf (talk) 21:04, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

File:VOA Arrott - A View of Syria, Under Government Crackdown 01.jpg

File:VOA Arrott - A View of Syria, Under Government Crackdown 01.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!
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 ∙ +/−

FunkMonk (talk) 15:51, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

QI subcats

Bitte seien Sie so brav und entfernen die Themenkategorien bei allen Unterkategorien von Category:Quality images by country. Ansonsten muss ich Sie leider reverten; Unordnung können wir am wenigsten gebrauchen. - A.Savin 23:33, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

  • the subcategories by region or type(ie churches) is a logical progression as the categories content build in numbers. I suggest if you have a concern post to one of COM:QI talk pages or Village pump where more people can participate Gnangarra 00:03, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Ich nehme mal an, Sie sind diskussionsresistent? Mir ist es schnurze ob QI in Themenkategorien stehen oder nicht, ich bemühe mich nur um einheitliche Standards. Wenn Sie also meinen, dass QI nicht in Themenkategorien passen, müssen Sie diese schon wirklich überall entfernen, und davon ist es noch meilenweit weg. - A.Savin 12:51, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Ich sehe keinen Grund für eine Diskussion. Zumindest nicht solange nicht ein Einziges Argument genannt wurde, warum etwas als Thema verwendet werden sollte das tatsächlich nur ein simples Projekt nach von Benutzern aufgestellten Kriterien ist. Vielmehr glaube ich, dass es sich hier um gelebte Faulheit handelt, es ist halt mit etwas Mühe verbunden Portalseiten wie en:Portal:United States aufzubauen und dort ausgezeichnete Inhalte vorzuzeigen. --Martin H. (talk) 12:56, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
Gut, also wenn Sie keinen Bedarf dafür sehen, für eine groß angelegte Revertaktion irgendwas zu diskutieren, dann sehe ich's halt auch nicht. Ich hatte vor ein paar Tagen etwas Ordnung in das QI-Kategoriensystem gebracht, was mehrere Stunden gedauert hat, und ich lasse es mir von einem ignoranten Admin nicht wieder kaputtmachen. Wo die Beschwerdestellen sind, dürfte Ihnen bekannt sein. Guten Tag. - A.Savin 13:02, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
Ich möchte darauf hinweisen, das zwischen "Revert" und Bearbeitung doch ein kleiner Unterschied besteht. Ich habe eine Begründung angegeben und ich habe mir nicht angemaßt, die Aufwertung eines Wikiprojekts zu einem universal gültigen Qualitätskriterium als "kleine" Bearbeitung zu markieren. --Martin H. (talk) 13:05, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Commons:Administrators'_noticeboard/User_problems#User:Martin_H.. - A.Savin 13:26, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Und ich dachte du wärst an einer Diskussion interessiert... ohne irgendein Argument zu bringen, A.Savin, funktioniert eine Diskussion nicht. --Martin H. (talk) 13:28, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
Ich habe meine Bedenken bereits hier oben geäußert, mich zu wiederholen habe ich nicht vor. - A.Savin 13:37, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
Einheitlichkeit ist kein Argument, die wird wieder hergestellt werden. Nur arbeite ich halt händisch und nicht mit irgendeinem stupiden gedrücke von Revert-Buttons, meine Zeit ist begrenzt und ich bin kein Magier. Mir daraus einen Strick zu drehen empfinde ich als ziemliche Unverschämtheit. --Martin H. (talk) 13:39, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
Nun, wenn Sie das Einholen einer dritten Meinung schon als Strickdrehen betrachten, dann brauchen wir ja wirklich an dieser Stelle nicht weiter diskutieren. ... A.Savin 13:58, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
Mir würde es reichen überhaupt erstmal irgendein Argument zu hören. Bisher habe ich nur eine Aufforderung erhalten in unbestimmter Zeit etwas bestimmtes ("in allen Unterkategorien von Category:Quality images by country") zu tun was wenige Tage später offensichtlich nicht mehr ausreichend ist und plötlich mit einer bestimmten Zeit belegt wird. --Martin H. (talk) 14:02, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Pido reposición de 2 imágenes

Buenos días, Martin. En una ocasión Usted borró todas las imágenes subidas por el usuario Huamash, estoy de acuerdo contigo pero excepto en dos archivos:

File:Precerámico Andino.jpg
File:Naciones integrantes del Imperio Incaico (Perú - Bolivia) (J. Rowe).png

Estas imágenes son gráficos y dibujos realizadas personalmente y no es ninguna copia ni reproducción alguna por lo que le pido que se reponga o me autoriza a subirlo nuevamente. Agradeceré su respuesta. Eniol (talk) 14:39, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

I disagree that the second is ineligible for copyright protection. Is it possible that Huamash was an account created and operated by your for uploading unfree files? Given the time of upload and the use of that files in es.wp I strongly suspect this... --Martin H. (talk) 22:08, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Rights

Hi Martin H.! Can you aprove my Rollback? User Béria Lima did not see that I'm a trusted user. Or I have to do another request? Thanks! Vitor Mazuco Msg 18:48, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

I will not accomplish such a request, open a new request or ask Beria. --Martin H. (talk) 22:03, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Your revert of Category:Pictures of Norbert Blüm

Please undo your revert of Category:Pictures of Norbert Blüm. It's quite appropriate to have categorization in this fashion. Thank you, -- Cirt (talk) 21:53, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Its quite unnecessary and created for no good reason. --Martin H. (talk) 21:55, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
It's appropriate and created for a very good reason. Your revert is inappropriate and not based in policy or Commons practices. Please change it back. Thanks. -- Cirt (talk) 21:56, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Nevermind, I'll just create Category:Norbert Blüm by year, and model it after existing current standards of practice at Category:Barack Obama by year. ;) Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 21:58, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

No. --Martin H. (talk) 22:00, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
Do so. I however have no idea what your ;) is good for. --Martin H. (talk) 22:00, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for the endorsement of the new categorization schema! ;) The ;) is for good luck! ;) Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 22:02, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Sorry for the way this discussion went above, I would appreciate a polite note with explanation in the future for reverts of a category I created. :) -- Cirt (talk) 22:07, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

And btw above is now ✓ Done. ;) Thanks for your understanding in this matter, -- Cirt (talk) 22:20, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Tonto

Haber tonto, porque causa, razón, motivo y circunstancia borrastes sin previo aviso mis imágenes de Pasquel Xclios.jpg AleG_xclios.jpg StephanieS.jpg Pinal_Xclios.jpg VAP.jpg

Haber explícamelo pero ya. Estoy muy molesto por eso, ya que estas imágenes son mías, son de mi autoría, estaba la licencia bien marcada al igual que el autor. El hecho de que no puedas tener la "imaginación" de poder subir tus imágenes, no significa que elimines el esfuerzo y trabajo ajeno, que por sí no lo sabes cuesta y mucho, para que tú vengas y las borres sin razón alguna. Se que entiendes el español, nos seas cobarde y dame una razón lógica para que justifiques la bajeza del borrado de mis imágenes.

As told you various times: you are not allowed to make photos of your television. No screenshots. No television. --Martin H. (talk) 23:08, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

File:Stade Louis Michel.jpg

Hello, Martin H

I want to know why do you have delete the file Stade Louis Michel.jpg, because I'm the autor of this photo, and I autorize wikipidedia to use it.

You use like reason for deleted that this photo is on this website (http://www.fcsete34.online.fr/ligue2_2005) but, it's normal because, it's my photo on this site ...

Can you restaure this photo please ?

Sincerely

CONCACAF-Footballeur (talk) 06:05, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

You uploaded exactly the same small thumbnail version that is shown at that website. This means: You copied the photo from that website, not from your harddrive. Upload an original photo or at least one with a larger size than that thumbnail shown on the website. --Martin H. (talk) 08:02, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
But I don't have an other version of this file, it's an old photo and I don't conserve the originally file. I seem that when I give this file at this suporter's site, there are no copyright on the photo and the site itsel is not protect by a licence no ?
If my arguments are not suffisent for you, I 'll acept the décision, but it's damagable that historical staduim don't have their photo. CONCACAF-Footballeur (talk) 10:35, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Overcatting

Hey. Would you like to take a look at this odd case and judge? Regards. Orrlingtalk 21:15, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Please

You have a report here and you are continuing with your behaviour, please talk with the other users first, you are too experienced as to know this Ezarateesteban 14:16, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

The user initially requested that I continue what I do. Now he turns the argument.... I see no arguments at all to not do what he initially desired. --Martin H. (talk) 14:22, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
A translation per Ezarate's request: User:Saibo/translation/User_talk:Martin_H.-QI_subcats. --Saibo (Δ) 14:57, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
Since I've invited people from QI project to the discussion, there should not be any reverts at all, as long as consensus has not been found. A.Savin 16:08, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Frederico Penteado

Hallo Martin, ich hab gesehen, dass du eine Reihe von Portrait-Uploads von User:Fpenteado als spam markiert hast. Einige davon habe ich gelöscht. Die verbliebenen Dateien, File:Albert Cossery.jpg und File:Herberto Helder.jpg, sind aber die einzigen Portraits, die wir von den beiden Persönlichkeiten derzeit überhaupt haben. Wäre es in dieser Situation nicht sinnvoll, diese beiden zu behalten, zumal das Link auf die Website des Malers relativ diskret unter dem Autorennamen platziert ist? --Túrelio (talk) 14:25, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Die Dateien müssen ja nicht gelöscht werden, allerdings müssen sie auch nicht in den Artikeln verwendet werden, bzw. sollte bei einer Verwendung - und dafür die Warnung - darauf geachtet werden wie sie verwendet werden. Zumindest nicht so wie der Benutzer es in 4 Wikis getan hat mit seinem Namen als Artikel-Link - roter Link da kein Artikel vorhanden und auch nicht in Aussicht - oder gar als Weblink. Besonderes zweiteres ist doch ziemlich dreist. Das der Künstler weitgehend unbekannt ist, die Porträts keinerlei Provenance haben, die Porträts keinerlei Bewertung durch Dritte erfahren haben ist zwar ziemlich schlecht und aus Qualitätsaspekten eigentlich ein no-go für jede seriöse Veröffentlichung bzw. Enzyklopädie, es gibt aber durchaus Wikis in denen Qualitätskriterien keine Anwendung finden. Diese Wikis können die Dateien ja gerne verwenden, in Ihrer Abwägung ob sie es tun sollten sie aber die Hintergründe der Uploads mit einbeziehen, dafür müssen sie die Hintergründe kennen welche ich kenntlich gemacht habe. --Martin H. (talk) 16:25, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

CFD on cat:Pictures_and_images and similar

As someone who has recently edited Category:Pictures and images, please see the (non-) discussion (not) going on at Commons:Categories for discussion/2012/02#Category:Pictures and images (and the 9 nominations following that one), if you haven't already, and comment there if you wish. Thanks. - dcljr (talk) 01:10, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

"Unicode wiki" - Socken

Hallo Martin, kannst du mal einen Blick auf Danielalexis17 (talk · contribs) werfen? Das ist immer noch ein Mitglied der großen Sockenfamilie von Unicode wiki (talk · contribs) and friends (jetzt auf en-wp geblockt.) Seine neueste hier hochgeladene Datei habe ich auf en-wp schon gelöscht. Habe zwar die Vorlage noch nicht gefunden, aber die gefälschte Beschreibung passt genau ins Schema von vorausgehenden Copyvios. – Gruß, Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:38, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

User:Sinangalatasaray

I gave him end of copyvios warning in December, however it deosn't work, he recently uploaded new set of copyvio photos under false self made claim. Could you take some action.--Oleola (talk) 15:48, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Please take a look what I recently discovered by checking uploads from copyvio uploader User:Aykutercetinfan. It's EXIF match on File:NecatiSedat.jpg and File:DoğaKaya.jpg from User:Sinangalatasaray so it's probably the same person and he is uploading copyvio photos from these two accounts.--Oleola (talk) 16:41, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

AP and United Press International.

Hi Martin H. I found that File:Dalai-mao-oct13-1954.jpg and File:Dalai mao colour1.jpg are from AP and United Press International, repectively. I have indicated this information in these files, and took away the indication that copyright expired. I do not know if they were published in China. Is the PD-China tag correct ? Thanks in advance for your response. --Rédacteur Tibet (talk) 18:20, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Und mal wieder Amir.Hossein ...

Nächste Socke: ImanRezazadeh (talk · contribs) (selbe Bilder wie die letzte auf en-wp.) Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:06, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Kelly Sheridan's photo

Hi Martin H. I sent an e-mail to confirm my permission to(permissions-commons@wikimedia.org)about uploading [12] will it be aproved in 7 days? Is there anything else that I need to do? Soheyla Sh (talk) 16:33, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

If it is not approved in 7 days the file will be restored when it is approved. --Martin H. (talk) 16:35, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
Ok. Thank you Soheyla Sh (talk) 16:40, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Imagenes con copyright dudoso

NO lo puedo creer deverdad, todas estas imagenes que han eliminado, las he tomado yo misma, están guardadas en otra página web, tal vez fueron usadas por terceros! no puedo creerlo. --D vsquez (talk) 00:37, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

For most photos the true copyright holder is identified, its copyright holders like Wireimage or photos distributed via stock photography sites with known authors/copyright holders. Your lying is absolutely inapropriate. --Martin H. (talk) 00:39, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Well maybe just a couple were taken by me ... I demand that you return them, an image that a chick take it myself, and I'm not saying the others do not take me, take all, I demand that at least give me back the image of the chicken.I DO NOT SPEAK ENGLISH!! --D vsquez (talk) 00:43, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

File:Alexsandro de Souza

Hi, I recently got a message which says the file I uploaded has been deleted. I think I upladed it with wrong license or something else. Because, the photographer is my friend and gave me that file as public domain. I think he need send an email to OTRS team. He can do it tomorrow morning. Is is possible to undelete that file till tomorrow? Because I already edited all languages of the article which use this file. I hope you will understand the situation. LuCKY (talk) 00:57, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

It is possible, if the permission is a permission to a free license and comes from that newspaper. --Martin H. (talk) 19:17, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
Thank you for your answer. It is not a newspaper, it is a fan web site of Fenerbahçe SK. This web site has a photographer who takes photos on every match. [antu.com/sekoloji/AlexsandrodeSouza.jpg Here] is the original source of the file uploaded by site administrator. [antu.com/FotoGaleri.aspx?sec=2010_2011 Here] are some other photos taken by site photographer. The site administrator already had sent permission to OTRS team and waits for approval. Can you undelete the file and use {{OTRS pending}} templete now? LuCKY (talk) 19:35, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
You are aware that the permission must come from the copyright holder? In case its a person from the person, in case its a company from an authorized signatory who is legally allowed to release intelectual property rights. An administrator of some fan website cant release copyrights. The permission must come from Oğuz Yörük from Sabah, or from the company management. Not from anyone else. --Martin H. (talk) 19:41, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
Yes I know that. Copyright holder is that site administrator. Because, it is a web site, not a newspaper or company. That web site has a photographer and takes photos. So the site becomes the copyright holder, because that site pays salary for the photographer. There is no any 3rd party copyright holder. So please tell me, who will release the copyright? LuCKY (talk) 19:57, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
The copyright holder, the copyright holder is described as Sabah in the EXIF data. And the photographer is an employee of that newspaper [13]. Buying a license for reusing the photo on a fan website does not mean that the fan website now owns the copyright. They can use the image on the website, yes, but they can not redistribute it nor can they give others the permission to reuse it. --Martin H. (talk) 19:59, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
Okay. There is a misunderstanding. I have talked again with my friend who gave me that photo. He says that they already paid for that photo to publish it on their site. It is not taken by their photographer. So they can only publish it on their web site. They can not release the copyright. You are right. He sent me some other photos taken by their photographer. I will upload one of them. You may delete that photo. I'm sorry for that. LuCKY (talk) 20:17, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Is there a problem with this one? This photo has been taken by site photograpger and the site has all the rights. LuCKY (talk) 22:27, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Im not happy with your EXIF changing, last time your manipulated the EXIF data too. To be clear: Im concerned about this kind of EXIF editing and disagree to it. Upload the original file with unaltered EXIF.
If the file is ok if written permission provided by someone who is legaly responsible for the organization operating the site, who agrees to a free license and who has to confirm that they own the necessary copyrights to waive copyrights. --Martin H. (talk) 22:34, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
I am really sorry about the first file. I did not know that they paid for it. He told me later about it. I have not edited EXIF this time. My friend who is site administrator did it himself. He is the copyright holder and he can give permission to OTRS team if you like. He is already friend of Alexsandro de Souza and can take photo of him all time. You may check his Twitter account if you like. LuCKY (talk) 22:54, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
By the way, I updated the source section. There is a news entry which includes this file. LuCKY (talk) 23:10, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
Other photos posted not speak for a professional photographer, but ok. Provide written permission from the copyright holder. --Martin H. (talk) 23:27, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
Okay, I am going to tell him to send permission to OTRS team. Thank you. By the way, I am an experienced Wikipedian on Tr:Wiki, I really do not want to post anything violating copyright purposes. I pay attention about it. LuCKY (talk) 23:34, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm not unhappy with this happening

Honestly, I do not want to continue claiming, at least I want back the image of the chicken.

and, if they say that images of lions are marked with the template and delete, why are they still on my page 'my uploads'?. --D vsquez (talk) 19:13, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

What file do you mean? I cant remember any photo I see. --Martin H. (talk) 19:17, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Walter_Linse_Haft.jpg

Dear Martin H. Could you please have a look at the following file : [14], as an individual examination is requested before transfer to commons? Thanks in adavance, --Rédacteur Tibet (talk) 12:41, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

The information on de.wp only refers to German copyright, not to copyright in the country of origin where it presumably is unfree. And the argumentation for Germany is wrong or outdated. --Martin H. (talk) 22:07, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Google o' history

Please With Love... Why You Blocked Me ?

Maybe It Was Misunderstanding..?

Sorry,But I Am Still New To The Wiki Project .

I Don't Know Much About Rules And Laws Of The Wiki Project .

Please I Am A Novice .

Maybe We Both Misunderstood Each Other .

I Am So Sorry If I Broke A Law In The Wiki Project .

Thanks Very Much....

--Google of history (talk) 20:21, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

See User talk:Google o' history. Using Google in your username is extremly misleading, select a different username. --Martin H. (talk) 21:04, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Photo Seb Janiak on the Seb Janiak new edited page

I work for the Art Gallery which represent Seb Janiak rights. We do have all the authorizations to make this page and present the pictures. He asked me to do it, and send himself theses pictures. Do not erase it.

I Have authorization from Zig Engleman to Publish his photo.

Dear sir I Have authorization from Zig Engleman to place his photo in wikipida (Portuguese Version). I Already sent to permissions-commons-pt@wikimedia.org the email he sent me.

Here is a copy. If You'd like i can resend it to you. Thanks Eduardo <copy of email removed> --Martin H. (talk) 20:54, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

As you said: You already forwared the permission to permission system. My answer to your permission would be: This is not a sufficient permission. Permission must be given that anyone - also outside of Wikipedia - can reuse the photo anywhere, anytime for any purpose including commercial purposes. --Martin H. (talk) 20:54, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Deletions

Hi Martin, you placed two deleted notices for images that had been taken from Life magazine (Link). I had placed the source & the {{pd-india}} license. Can you please tell me what went wrong? AshLin (talk) 18:19, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Provide evidence that the file was first published in India. Only then PD-India is applicable, for other files you can not use it. The requirement is the country of publication, not the country where the photo was taken. For files first published in the U.S. PD-India is wrong. This are photos from a US magazine. The magazine fulfilled all U.S. requirements of copyright registration and is therefore still in copyright (for 95 years after publication). --Martin H. (talk) 20:00, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for the detailed clarification. It is very helpful. AshLin (talk) 03:03, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Borrado de tabla

Hola, parece que has borrado una tabla laborada a partir de unos datos aportados en wikipedia: Historial de la Primera División de España, la tabla que borraste Tablabarsa.PNG fue realizada a partir de esos datos. Te exijo inmediatamente una explicación al borrado. Otras tablas como estas de aquí o esta fueron realizados tomando en cuenta estadísticas de los clubes en sus respectivos torneos.

Nanovapor9 (talk) 22:39, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Borrado de fotos

Veo que sigues en la misma línea. Parece que no entiendes que hay logos de empresas o entidades que solo consisten en figuras y en meras letras y en nada viola. AC Milan, Discovery Channel son por nombrar algunos de los cientos de logos almacenados en commons. Te pido amablemente dejes de borrar este tipo de logos, de lo contrario, tendré que pedir la intervención de otros administradores, ya sea de wikipedia en español o inglés. Volveré a subir las imágenes.

Nanovapor9 (talk) 23:52, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Images of Établissement de Communication et de Production Audiovisuelle de la Défense

For the images of Établissement de Communication et de Production Audiovisuelle de la Défense :

  • File:2011ECPA347G020 067.jpg
  • File:F-52-114-R24.jpg
  • File:2012ASAP 030 110007.jpg
  • File:2011ECPA087D003025.jpg]]
Français : (missing text)

 : Les photos proposées sont libres de droit pour un usage exclusif à des fins d’information, et tant qu’elles sont accessibles en ligne sur ce site Internet. Pour tout autre usage, contact devra être pris auprès du pôle commercial de l’ECPAD (01.49.60.52.07 ou ventes-archives@ecpad.fr). Les photos sont téléchargeables à l’unité ou en totalité par reportage en cliquant sur l’onglet « Télécharger tout le reportage ». Chaque photo possède l’intégralité de ses champs IPTC (métadonnées), le nom du photographe, une légende, l’origine, le copyright.

Automatic translator :

English: (missing text)

 : The photos are available copyright free for use exclusively for purposes of information, and as they are available online on this website. For any other purpose, contact should be made with the commercial hub of the ECPAD (01.49.60.52.07 or ventes-archives@ecpad.fr). The photos are downloadable individually or in whole by reportage by clicking on the tab "Download entire report." Each photo has its entire IPTC (metadata), the photographer's name, a legend, originally copyright. L'amateur d'aéroplanes (talk) 10:39, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

For purposes of information is not free. Commercial reuse must be allowed too. See Commons:Critères_d'inclusion#Conditions_pour_qu.27une_licence_soit_consid.C3.A9r.C3.A9e_comme_libre. --Martin H. (talk) 16:01, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
Français : (missing text)
Entendu, si les conditions mises par l'organisme de la Défense ne correspondent pas, effacer les images. J'ai une question concernant une image du wiki anglais, est elle valable ou non pour le wiki ?. Je l'ai mit il y a quelques semaines car un bot indiqué que l'on pouvait le faire, mais elle à était effacé presque aussitot, mais le bot reste sur l'image d'origine.
English: (missing text)
Naturally, if the conditions set by the agency of Defense does not match, delete the images. I have a question about an image of the English wiki, it is valid or not for the wiki?. I started a few weeks ago as a bot said one could do, but it was deleted almost immediately to, but the bot remains on the original image :

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Thor_Raf_launch_3aug59.jpg

L'amateur d'aéroplanes (talk) 08:13, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

I cant help you with this en.wp file. I see no evidence that it is a photo published by NASA since the source is not a NASA publication and gives no evidence that the file is from NASA sources. --Martin H. (talk) 19:49, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Hey, Martin

Hey, Martin! After checking your copyright, I found only one violation, and you gave them to me three! Please correct the mistake and do not mislead people. I realize I made a mistake, but still be better.

Help me...

This is my file - Mamuka Khekheulidze

Please, Help me DELETING this file...


Best, --Mimosfinn (talk) 13:44, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Wieder mal ein Jerry Dandridge

user:Psycho (1960). LG, --Martin1978 (talk) 23:07, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Category:Templates related to Romania

Hi, I think it is very useful to have Category:Templates related to Romania under Category:Romania, otherwise there is nothing that links the two. Or do you have other suggestions?--Codrin.B (talk) 16:51, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Templates are not topics, there is no reason to have it inside the country category for Romania. My suggestion is to link the category from the project Romania, it can be usefull for the people working in the project. Another suggestion is to forget about the category but create a list in the Commons namespace instead. That list can be a subpage below the project Romania. --Martin H. (talk) 17:26, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
Hmm, yes but I am not sure if categories should group just topics. On en.wp we have en:Category:Romania templates in en:Category:Romania and I've seen other examples as well. But I followed your suggestion and added it to Category:WikiProject Romania templates.--Codrin.B (talk) 19:41, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Hello help!!

Why you deleted my pic?? I try so hard to upload it because still confusing using this...I really wanna use that pic to edit in an actor's Wikipedia page...there is something wrong?? Please tell me...I can't upload the same pic again :( I just want use that pic...can I take it back?? Thanks in advance!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by AnitaTristi (talk • contribs) 18:05, 24 March 2012‎ (UTC)

Yes, there is something wrong. Content on Wikimedia projects has to be free content. The file you uploaded with your account User:Anitatristi is unfree content. --Martin H. (talk) 18:10, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Warum hast du meine hochgeladenen Bilder gelöscht?

Wieso hast du alle Bilder, die ich mit dem Account Psycho (1960) hochgeladen habe. Ich hab mir viel Mühe gegeben die Bilder zu erstellen und hochzuladen. Vor allem all die Quellen und Autoren zusammenzutragen hat einige Zeit in Anspruch genommen. Bisher hast du meine Bilder doch auch nie gelöscht so, dass ich sie danach immer in die Artikel einfügen konnte, wo sie übrigens auch immer noch sind. Weshalb dieses Mal nicht? Du hättest doch nur das Miss Marple Logo löschen müssen, da das urheberrechtlich geschützt war, aber alle anderen bestanden nur aus einfachsten Geometrischen Formen und Text! Könntest du mir dein Handeln bitte erklären? -- 79.219.164.253 18:45, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Erstens, weil du auf diesem Projekt nichts mehr zu suchen hast. Gesperrt ist gesperrt. Zweitens, weil auch die Nicht-Schutzwürdigkeit grenzen hat. Ein Bild mit wolkigem Hintergrund ist ein textlogo? Nein, ist es nicht, es ist geschützt und dein Upload hier ist eine Urheberrechtsverletzung. Das wurde dir schon mehrmals gesagt, du ignorierst es, wir müssen es dir wieder sagen, du wirst es wieder ignorieren. Auf diesem Projekt gibt es bessere Dinge zu tun, als dir hinterherzuräumen. Die Löschung ist ein Schlußstrich unter deine Aktivitäten, deine Ignoranz und unter die Zeitverschwendung die du verursachst. Tschüs, oder besser: Auf nimmer Wiedersehen. --Martin H. (talk) 18:52, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
Ich komme wieder! Das letzte Wort ist noch nicht gesprochen! -- 79.219.164.253 19:05, 24 March 2012 (UTC) Und nun einen herzlichen Applaus für Jim Morrison: [15]

Please check your email

I have sent a request to your email. Hope you will oblige. Huji (talk) 19:16, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Thank you! Huji (talk) 19:19, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

how to categorize?

Hi Martin, I am not very good in wikimedia commons; i have saw that you put template in some picture that i have upload because they are within category. Can you tell me,please, how I can set up that picture? Thanks --Stefiro (talk) 19:47, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

You can not upload pictures that you not created youself with the information that you created the picture yourself. You can not upload scans of newspaper with the information that you created the newspaper article if you not did this. Check out the source and author fields of the uploads and provide true information. --Martin H. (talk) 19:56, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

I have set up the information as I have been able, can you check? If already miss something let me know. --Stefiro (talk) 20:48, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

The problem now is that your sources are not free. enciclopedia delle donne is unfree, commercial reuse is forbidden by their license. Also newspapers are not published under a free license, newspaper scans have nothing to do here on Wikimedia projects unless they are freely licensed. Wikipedia Commons is a free content project, see Commons:Project scope. --Martin H. (talk) 22:50, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

But i have read the page enciclopedia delle donne and in bottom of the page is write that The contents of the Encyclopedia of women are published under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-Share Alike 2.5. May be redistributed freely only if they are attributed to their authors as belonging to the project and the Encyclopedia of Women and if not used for commercial purposes. so, how i cannot use the picture? And for newspapers, i have write the name of newspapers and who have write the article, i thought that newspapers are made for make other people know about them. If i put as a note the link of newspaper, can I do this? But i think that link or scan is the same things..? I ask and write you this not for quarrel but for understand. --Stefiro (talk) 08:45, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

"if not used for commercial purposes". Wikimedia projects are free content projects, all content must be fre for reuse by anyone, anytime for any purpose, including commercial purposes. Read our project scope, Commons:Project scope#Required licensing terms. Newspaper are made for other people read them, correct. But for uploading something to Wikimedia Commons the authors of the newspaper must agree to free reuse by anyone, anytime for any purpose including commercial reuse. --Martin H. (talk) 02:55, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Banknotes of France

Good morning! I have read the rules of the currency of France has a free license.([16]) My question is - can I upload images of banknotes from the same site? --Numizmat 675

What do you mean with 'from the same site'? --Martin H. (talk) 02:57, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
Please look this File:France 5 francs 1960-a.jpg --Numizmat 675
the PD-scan tag is correct, the person who made the scan not got a new copyright for scanning according to Wikimedia COM:SCAN. But the license tag is not correct, its not a text from JORF. --Martin H. (talk) 17:55, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Milos Hrstic

I think you wrongly judged 2 of my uploaded photos. Ok, the one on the cover magazine should be deleted(File:Milos Hrstic cover.jpg) , but one photo I personally took (Official presentation in Chengdu, 1997), the other (File:Misokina.jpg) was given to me by the photographer and is in my personal album, the one in the yugoslavian shirt is taken from a magazine in 1979, so it can't be matter of copywright infrangment. Please I stated for the pictures, I will respond if necessary.

But I think that wikipedia should have put a photo by itself on the Milos Hrstic page, considering that he was Yugoslavia's best player of all times on the position of left back.

Best regards

Copyright is lifetime of the author +70 years, so yes, a magazine from 1979 is subject to copyright. Having a copy of a photo does not mean that you have the right to redistribute the photo for free reuse including commercial reuse. --Martin H. (talk) 02:59, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Google Maps - CAT.png

I do not understand why you deleted the image. I made ​​this screenshot. All my images are under "Multi-license with CC-BY-SA-3.0 and GFDL". I made a mistake in selecting the license?. --Jmarchn (talk) 22:35, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Yes. Making a screenshot is a derivative work of someone else copyrighted work. You can not create screenshots of copyrighted works and publish this screenshots under a free license without the copyright holders agreement to that license. And the Google terms of service clearly not contain a permission to make screenshots and publish them under CC-BY-SA-3.0 or GFDL. --Martin H. (talk) 17:59, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Hi! I need your help

Hi how are you. I need your help please. ¿Can you upload an image original of the Chevrolet's logo? I thanks for you. Good bye!

--Diego HC (talk) 03:14, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Only one with the simple black shaped cross and the text such as that in tr.wp. A version with the gold and siver and 3D effects (such as de.wp or en.wp) is to complex and not ineligible for copyright protection. --Martin H. (talk) 15:46, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
Thanks!!! --Diego HC (talk) 02:42, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

File:Fernando Gago (Real Madrid).jpg

Thank you very much. I hadn't noticed it. :) raul (talk) 22:30, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Help me Please

Good Day !

I would like to upload images that I downloaded from this page http://www.zimbio.com/photos/Jay-Z/browse and from the official Facebook page: http://www.facebook.com/JayZ

It would be really important as I would like to create a legit Jay-Z page for the Hungarian Wikipedia, however if all the pictures that are great are going to be deleted all the time then my efforts to give something to my community have failed.

I feel disappointed with the treatment I have received for my work ! As the tutorials are completely useless and clearly Wiki gives no help, by the time I worked out how to do that I wanted half of my work was deleted by the site...

Please tell me how could I use those pictures again.

Sincerely:

Reventon

This files are unfree. You can not upload something here unless the copyright owner agreed to a free license. The requirements to upload here are very, very high. Read Commons:Projekt_témája#Megengedhet.C5.91_licencfelt.C3.A9telek. The copyright owner must agree that anyone, worldwide, can reuse the photo for commercial purposes. A provider such as Getty Images who earns money from distributing photos will not agree to such an economic loss. --Martin H. (talk) 18:58, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Hovik95

Hi, Martin H. When you have time, could you control this situation ? Thank you. Takabeg (talk) 03:42, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Barbara Mamabolo

I did not violate copy write.

attribution on a site that does not allow links

This is in answer to your posting to my question about use of a photo on a site that does not allow links. Sorry I'm not very adept at using this site.

I'm not even sure the site I sell on will allow me to include a link minus the "http://", I have asked them if this will be appropriate and am awaiting their answer. If, as I suspect, it is not allowed, how would I go about contacting the photographer? And if I were able to obtain permission from the photographer to use the photo with just a name attribution which I know will be acceptable on this site, do I simple proceed to use it that way?

Thanks so much for your time.

Commons:Contact_us#Getting in contact with individual users. --Martin H. (talk) 17:50, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

This time I only changed it to black&white, restore it. --viniciusmc (talk) 19:37, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

If you were less agressive the message would come across easily. I didn't know that alternative versions (higher resolution, better scanning job, etc) of a picture weren't allowed. --viniciusmc (talk) 19:42, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
If you describe a file on a file description page, and upload something very different, you of course should be aware that this will result in an reaction. --Martin H. (talk) 22:42, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

question

Hi Martin. I have a question. can we use this photo in commons?Ninja irani (talk) 21:24, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

I have no idea. --Martin H. (talk) 22:39, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Question from Russia

Hello Martin, Look at my files originals from 11 Apri. I did everything correctly ?

Original files

--CPI-RUS (talk) 22:39, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

User:Elchacal92

Hi! User:Elchacal92 ignored end of copyvios warning and uploaded toady another photo taken from web as own work File:Estadio platense.jpg He is also using his second account User:Elchelodelgado to upload copyvios.--Oleola (talk) 10:15, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Agree and blocked, for a user with 2000 edits on a Project this is unacceptable. "This" means: operating a second account on Commons for large copyvio uploading. --Martin H. (talk) 20:46, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

User:Kiki234

If that may be of any help, there's an IP address through which more than probably the above user vandalized wikipedias abroad. I intercepted it on the it.wiki yesterday, guess on which article? -- SERGIO (aka the Blackcat) 20:37, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

No need. Thanks for your help. --Martin H. (talk) 20:40, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
Ok. You're welcome. Anytime. -- SERGIO (aka the Blackcat) 08:54, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

User:Seteselos

Google Translator:
You deleted files without checking the discussion page, check the history, all the discussion already had open when you went out without making proper verification.
All files are sent to describe the site of the supplier / distributor where it appears clear the license used. Please correct your mistake. And next time pay attention to detail as the normas.
I look forward with urgency.
Thank you.


Original PT-BR (Brasil):
Você apagou arquivos sem verificar a página de discussão, confira o histórico, todas já possuiam discussão em aberto, quando você apagou.
Todos os arquivos enviados possuem na descrição o site do fornecedor/distribuidor onde consta claro a licença utilizada. Por favor corrija seu erro. E preste atenção da próxima vez aos detalhes, conforme as normas.
Aguardo com urgência.
Obrigado.

File List:

-- JEAN CARLO Seteselos::DISCUSSÃO 23:03, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

I checked the file discussion and ansererd on your user talkpage already. But in short:
Not all "Creative Commons" licenses are allowed on Commons. Please, read the Commons:First steps and Commons:Licensing. --Martin H. (talk) 23:10, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
Or read Commons:Critérios_para_inclusão/Sumário#Deve encontrar-se sob uma licença livre ou no domínio público if you not like reading much instructions. --Martin H. (talk) 23:11, 12 April 2012 (UTC)


Fix the Problem IN Progress (Correção do Problema em andamento)

Google Translator

Upload another image using the same name for compatibility with wikipedia.
License 'Attribution 3.0 License Creative Commons License'
[Trusted Distributor to the Site License Information]


Original Language

Upload de outra imagem utilizando o mesmo nome para compatibilidade com wikipedia.
Licença Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported License
[Site do Distribuidor Fidedigno com Informações sobre a Licença]

  • Please if there is a problem, give me time to fix it. And if possible make it clear the problem. Thank you.
    Por Favor se houver algum problema, dê-me tempo para solucioná-lo. E Se possível deixe claro o problema. Obrigado.

-- JEAN CARLO Seteselos::DISCUSSÃO 00:06, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Apollo 11 Files

Dear Sir, today You've deleted three files on U.S. postage stamps commemorating 20th and 25th anniversaries of the Apollo 11 first lunar landing. I'd like to know the reason for that. Those files are certainly in the public domain, aren't they? U.S. Postal Service is the author of those images. Currently I'm writing an article for Wikipedia's russian edition about "First Man on the Moon (US postage stamp)". So I need those images badly. By the way, I think it's strange enough that You don't have such an article in english edition. I request Your kind undeletion of those files. Best regards,--Igorvyh-- (talk) 13:55, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

They are not. Please take the time and read the template that you use, {{PD-USGov}}, the template clearly says that it not applies to stamps published since 1978. Please do this reading before uploading. --Martin H. (talk) 14:08, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
Is there anything to do about that, anything to solve this particular problem? I'd appreciate Your advice very much.--Igorvyh (talk) 17:06, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
Copyright holder USPS must give written permission to a free content license. Thats the only possible sollution. --Martin H. (talk) 17:09, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
Sorry to bother You once more. What do You mean by "written permission"? Will it be OK to apply for permission by e-mail, or not? And what could be the prospects in that case? Thank You.----Igorvyh (talk) 18:09, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

UR File:Guta-stresser.jpg

FYI: Commons:Undeletion requests/Current requests#File:Guta-stresser.jpg -- Common Good (talk) 18:17, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

File:Roy Jones Jr..jpg

Hello, why do you think this photo is copyright violation? I speak to User:Fedyanin Nikita and he tell me that he is an author of this picture. Maybe he is lie to me :) He tell that he is a photograph and he was on press-conference in Moscow... -Steffaville (talk) 21:30, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

I think you are wrong, look at his contribution, seems he made all this photos, please remove template of fast deletion. --Steffaville (talk) 21:36, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
The user copied from 4 identified authors always with the claim that he is the author. Thats impossible. The user grabbed files from RIAN, again with the claim that he is the author. No, just because someone uploads a lot of similar looking files does not mean that he is the copyright holder. The source clearly says "Фото: Артема Геодакяна", so the information "own work" and "author Fedyanin Nikita" is obviously not the truth. --Martin H. (talk) 21:38, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
ok, so he lie to me) -Steffaville (talk) 04:39, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Licence

Bonjour, afin d'être en règle vis à vis de mes licences, j'ai remis comme il faut toutes les licences à la date de la première contribution (téléchargement de la photo).

Exemple : File:Gare de Neuvy-Pailloux (36) - Vue générale.jpg

Gare de Neuvy-Pailloux.

--Floppy36 (talk) 11:02, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

no for exemple this licence (de Neuvy-Pailloux (36) - Vue générale.jpg&oldid=65653842 1) is the prems (see history). --Floppy36 (talk) 17:19, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
Of course it still is a revoke of licenses that you granted by adding them to the file description. So strictly speaking you must add all license tags. But since you look not much expirienced with editing and you finaly reverted all back to the initial license it should be ok now. --Martin H. (talk) 17:31, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Image deletion (Road maps of Brazil)

The road maps I posted in the Commons and that you deleted were official images of the Brazilian Ministry of Transport website. The license that I had placed was really wrong. Now I found the correct license (

© The copyright holder of this file allows anyone to use it for any purpose, provided that the copyright holder is properly attributed. Redistribution, derivative work, commercial use, and all other use is permitted.

) and I am trying to post the images again. However, the Commons is blocking the transmission of the images, saying that the files are duplicated. And now, my friend? What should I do? --Arthur to (talk) 23:48, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Looks like you found the way to the undeletion request page. --Martin H. (talk) 03:57, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Long time ago...

.. you delete File:Road97.jpg as a copyvio but you left no link to a discussion or another version somewhere on the Internet.

If you by any chance can remember why perhaps some of the files on en:Special:ListFiles/Nima_Farid should also be deleted. Could you have a quick look? I bet the files will be transferred to Commons at some point. --MGA73 (talk) 19:24, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

http://www.panoramio.com/photo/13539995. --Martin H. (talk) 03:56, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Chisora

Hello Martin, may I ask can you return my version of this File:Derek Chisora 2011.jpg? I cropped Chisora and upload my version of this Alex Reid.jpg why user Darrenm540 uploaded this version I cannot understand. Maybe he is a fan of Alex Reid because he changed my cropped photo in the article about Chisora to Alex Reid.jpg. Can you do something about it? Thanks. --Steffaville (talk) 20:49, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

talk with the uploader. --Martin H. (talk) 03:59, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

About venezuela

you've deleted several images on Venezuela, which had everything in order, for example TurismoLanchasisladecoche.jpg I had personally given. is an abuse of you, delete the work of others indiscriminately.

the damage you caused is irreparable, I think they should punish you for that. http://es.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Isla_de_San_Pedro_de_Coche&action=history

I think the damage is done by all this venezuela islands sockpuppet accounts who uploaded all this stolen photos. This sockpuppets indeed did damage to this project with uploading. Because of copies to other website this sockpuppets caused irreparable damage to the free content movement, for Wikipedia however the damage is repaired with the deletion. --Martin H. (talk) 03:53, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

User:Sternzeichen:Mann

Hi, die Sache mit Benutzerverwarnungen/-sperrungen bei Commons hab ich noch nicht ganz verstanden - könntest du mal schauen was gegen User:Sternzeichen:Mann unternommen werden kann? Nachdem eine Menge seiner Uploads als Copyvios gelöscht werden mussten, hat er fleißig neue Copyvios hochgeladen (z. B File:BBC_Mississippi.JPG, sämtliche Uploads müssten noch geprüft werden..). Vllt. nochmal eine administrative Ansprache?--D.W. (talk) 13:36, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Hi! Die Frage, ob die Uploads geprüft werden müssen, stellt sich nicht. Siehe bitte Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Sternzeichen:Mann. Da wird sich aus Pressemappen bedient und auf die Photos dutzender (!) Urheber zurückgegriffen, siehe Kameras. In seinem Fall würde ich den Account auflassen, so kann schneller wieder gelöscht werden, wenn er nach der Löschung nicht die Lust verliert. Viele Grüße und danke für deine Aufmerksamkeit, --Polarlys (talk) 15:22, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
Danke das du dich drum kümmerst.--D.W. (talk) 20:49, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Clarifications

I notice that some of my upload(s) on Wikimedia Commons have been altered and/or nominated despite the fact that..

(1) I legally own most of the images that I have uploaded on Wikimedia Commons, (2) The photographs were taken either my me or by a family member (including ancestors) and I have got the original negatives of most of them, (3) The photographs show our estates and/or residences and the visitors (including Gandhi, Nehru) with a family member, (4) The artist (painter) Beohar Rammanohar Sinha (1929-2007) was my father and the litterateur Beohar Rajendra Simha (1900-1988) was my grandfather, (5) Following my father’s death, I have lawfully inherited all his artworks and paintings solely by way of his WILL which unambiguously authorizes me to handle and use them whichever way I feel appropriate, (6) Even during his lifetime, I was managing all his artworks as <abrsinha@yahoo.co.uk>, (7) Without imposing any conditions, or restricting anyone’s rights, but purely to keep a track of image/file usage outside Wiki, the phrase “Seek consent from <abrsinha@yahoo.co.uk>…” has been inserted. I fully realize that this doesn’t mean much because the uploaded media is now in public domain and freely reproducible.

Hope that the above clarifies and addresses administrators concerns, and that they will now remove all ‘nominations’ from my upload(s). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Abrsinha (talk • contribs)

Please see: User_talk:Polarlys#Clarifications. --Polarlys (talk) 12:06, 23 April 2012 (UTC)


Podrías revisar la legalidad de este archivo??

Hi Martin, I want you for solicited: ¿Can you observe the legality of this file? Please verify this picture: File:Gentile Chevrolet Cruze TC2000.jpg.

Thanks!!!! --Diego HC (talk) 02:46, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

User:Sinangalatasaray aka User:Aykutercetinfan returned with new username

This copyvio user is now uploading suspicious photos under username AntalyasporFC. I know it is because he uploaded the same photo File:AliTandoganNecatiAteşSedatAgcay.jpg as before from one of his previous accounts. Today he uploaded a full set of HQ photos, however due to his past uploads it can't be photos taken by him. Based on EXIF I found the source of one photo File:Ali Zitouni.jpg, but can't find a source for the rest, however I found this photo File:Mehmet Özdilek.jpg but in lower resolution on two websites[17][18]. I also noticted when looking in other photos EXIF that date of generation is wrong or switched to one year backward. en:Petr Janda or en:Silvino João de Carvalho didn't play for club Antalyaspor in 2011, they joind the club in 2012, so it proves that uploader has got no idea where photos were actually taken.--Oleola (talk) 22:16, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

I will check later. --Martin H. (talk) 08:15, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Martin_H./Archive_25&oldid=108644673"