This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
If you use the helper-the scripts, you will find the links next to the search box (vector) or as single tabs (monobook). They are named license+ and license-
importScript('User:ZooFari/licensereviewer.js'); // stable script for reviewing images from any kind of source OR
importScript('User:Rillke/LicenseReview.js'); // contains also user notification when review fails, auto blacklist-check and auto-thank you message for Flickr-reviews.
Some contents have been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether they should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at their entry.
If you created these pages, please note that the fact that they have 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 them, 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!
Stefan4, I uploaded the flickr picture of the Handel House Museum to en.wikipedia.org and you almost immediately copied it over to commons using the link I had given. You also copy-pasted my detailed description without attribution. I am adding that as a note to the commons file. In future please attribute the creator of the description and the original uploader of the image. It took me a while to find that image on flickr and get the spelling of Jimi right. Thanks, Mathsci (talk) 14:18, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I was the one who found it on flickr and chose the resolution for the English article. In uploading the two pictures from St Jean de Malte, you did not notice that I had accidently mixed up the two at the time of uploading and corrected that. In the article everything is correct, but in the descriptions of the images on commons you have recreated that confusion. Look at the English wikipedia article where the images appear in the gallery with the correct captions. In that case, I scanned the now out-of-print booklet describing the church, lent to me by one of the monks. I found better copies of the same images on gallica to upload to wikipedia. Thanks, Mathsci (talk) 14:48, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The files have the same descriptions on Commons as on Wikipedia. If it is wrong, then it means that it is also wrong on Wikipedia. --Stefan4 (talk) 14:56, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I received a notification that four photographs I uploaded in 2009 have been nominated for deletion because they were not categorized and lacked OTRS tickets. I have checked these files and they do indeed have categories listed for each one, albeit not very many (some have only one). Also, I do have written permission in the form of an email from the photographer, and credited him in the uploading process. I do not understand why these files should be considered for deletion. I would appreciate contact from you and also an administrator regarding this matter.
This link will bring you to the matter in question:
I don't know what you mean when you write that there is a problem with the categorisation. The problem is that there is no evidence of permission from the copyright holder. If the copyright holder has permitted you to use the images under the indicated licences, then you should make sure that the copyright holder sends permission to OTRS according to the instructions at COM:OTRS. --Stefan4 (talk) 00:31, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, you put this file up for deletion because it may have violated copyright issues. I had taken two distinct photos, re-sized and cropped them and then added them together to make the image in question. To my knowledge both original images had been released by the government of North Korea and have been used thousands of times across the web in news stories etc and the combined image I put together was the only one using those specific images in combination (that I'm aware of after doing a search). Forgive my ignorance but does that still break the rules? Coinmanj (talk) 21:59, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You need permission from the North Korean government in order to use the photo of Kim Jong-un. The photo of Kim Il-sung might be in the public domain because of age, but this would need a source which verifies the claim. --Stefan4 (talk) 22:11, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
1923 deletion
Hi, did you check the date of publication for the pictures? Quite a lot of the artists were prominent and published by 1917 (2012 -95 years), so all pictures published in or before 1917 should be PD in the US by now. rgds --h-stt!?16:26, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The law was changed in the 1990s. Pictures published before 1923 were protected for at most 75 years since publication (so they are now all in the public domain), while pictures published in 1923 or later are protected for 95 years since publication. It is more or less impossible to figure out whether a painting has been "published", so I nominated paintings for deletion if they were made in 1923 or later or at some unknown point. Some earlier paintings might not have been published before 1923, and in that case, those would also have to be deleted, but the definition of "publication" in the United States is a bit complex. If a painting was shown at a museum, this is seems to be "publication" if the museum allowed anyone to enter the museum and use a camera to take photos of the painting. However, if the museum only was open to a limited group of people and didn't allow people to take photos of the painting, then it doesn't seem to be publication. The main issue is that it is non-trivial to tell whether a museum allowed photography or not at the beginning of the 20th century. --Stefan4 (talk) 10:29, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You also need to take into consideration whether the museum/gallery/artist published a catalogue, guidebook, set of postcards or similar relating to the exhibition. If they did, and it included any kind of reproduction of the painting, that also counts as publication. I've had that come up a couple of times. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 12:12, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, publication of paintings is very complex. It is often hard to find the exhibition history of a painting, let alone whether photography was allowed at the museum or whether any supplementary products (such as postcards) were published. If the painting was made in 1923 or later, it is too likely that it was published at some point before 1978 to keep the images (see COM:PRP). If the painting was made before 1923, then it might also have to be deleted, but it is too difficult to find out, so I think that it would be better to leave those cases to someone else. --Stefan4 (talk) 15:36, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If so, don't you think the DR might have been a tiny bit premature? Do you plan to mitigate the effects of that DR and if so, how? rgds --h-stt!?11:11, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The paintings nominated for deletion were all from 1923 or later, so those are clearly not OK. The only problem is that it is hard to identify which pre-1923 paintings we also need to delete. Paintings not published before 1923 are protected by copyright for 95 years since publication, so anything made in 1923 or later needs to go away. Pre-1923 paintings also need to be deleted if they remained unpublished for some time. --Stefan4 (talk) 11:21, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, this is my first step on Wikipedia I did not know the correct process to add an image.
Thank you for your comment, you can proceed with the deletion of the logo. I will use the most appropriate way to add a logo.
Thank you for not blacklist my Flickr account that is not a spam account.
Thank you for your help!
Without permission from the copyright holder, you can't upload this image. Commons won't accept it at all, and Wikipedia won't accept a fair use copy as long as it is not used in the article namespace. --Stefan4 (talk) 10:50, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You wrote that the person who wrote the text has been dead for at least 70 years. How can I verify that the person who wrote the text indeed did die at least 70 years ago?
You wrote that this document was published before 1923. How do I verify that this indeed is the case? Also, how was it possible to publish the document before 1923, considering that the text hadn't even been written by 1923?
You wrote that this document is in the public domain in Colombia, but the text was written in 1931, which is only 82 years ago, and works are typically only in the public domain in Colombia if the person who wrote the text died at least 80 years ago, which requires that the person who wrote the text either died during the same year as he wrote the text or during the following year. How can I verify that this indeed is the case?
You wrote that this document in the Ivory Coast, which normally requires that the author died at least 99 years ago, but the text was written less than 99 years ago. How can I verify that the person who wrote the text died before he wrote the text, and how could he write the text if he was already dead?
You wrote that the person who wrote the text died at least 100 years ago, but the text was written less than 100 years ago. How can I verify that the person who wrote the text died before he wrote the text, and how could he write the text if he was already dead? --Stefan4 (talk) 15:07, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry I made many mistakes.
In fact, this is a letter that my cousin, now dead, received 82 years ago by the Sovereign Order of Malta. Letter that I keep in my archive. I did not know that the letters were protected by copyright. I will cancel the errors.
Thank you and I apologize.--Roberto.Amerighi (talk) 15:17, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ho aggiunto il template
Public domainPublic domainfalsefalse
This work is in the public domain in its country of origin and other countries and areas where the copyright term is the author's life plus 70 years or fewer.
You must also include a United States public domain tag to indicate why this work is in the public domain in the United States. Note that a few countries have copyright terms longer than 70 years: Mexico has 100 years, Jamaica has 95 years, Colombia has 80 years, and Guatemala and Samoa have 75 years. This image may not be in the public domain in these countries, which moreover do not implement the rule of the shorter term. Honduras has a general copyright term of 75 years, but it does implement the rule of the shorter term. Copyright may extend on works created by French who died for France in World War II (more information), Russians who served in the Eastern Front of World War II (known as the Great Patriotic War in Russia) and posthumously rehabilitated victims of Soviet repressions (more information).
https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/mark/1.0/PDMCreative Commons Public Domain Mark 1.0falsefalse
. Il Balì Cancelliere dell'ordine di Malta, Ferdinando d'Afflitto, firmatario della lettera è morto nel 1944[1][B2.Ferdinando(*Firenze 25-V-1893 † Torino 7-X-1944). Patrizio di Amalfi, Cavaliere d’onore e Devozione del Sovrano Ordine di Malta]. Mio cugino Fabio Amerighi che ha ricevuto la lettera è morto nel 1970, io (Roberto Amerighi) sono suo erede, difatti ho questa lettera. Ho voluto dirti questi dati , per completezza. Io penso che una lettera scritta da un pubblico ufficio non sia coperta da copyright. Tu decidi. Io rispetto le tue decisioni. Cordially. Spero di poterti chiedere consigli in futuro--Roberto.Amerighi (talk) 16:33, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Stefan! I notice you transcluded onto the deletion log a bunch of previously untranscluded malformed Deletion requests. Before I do many more of these, could you please tell me if fixing them like this is helpful? thanks, Storkk (talk) 16:25, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Something like this should be enough. If cleaned up, it is much easier to comment since there will be an "edit" link in the daily log. I would guess that it also simplifies things for the administrator who will close the requests at some point. I didn't have time to clean them up immediately when I discovered the deletion requests, but I've started with that task now. --Stefan4 (talk) 17:48, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
At your initiative, some images I have uploaded have now been deleted, though to me they seemed perfectly well copyright licensed. Well, I am not a copyright lawyer. I would like to bring to your attention this image which, I presume, needs to be deleted too:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:MKGandhi.jpg
If not, please let me know the reasoning. Thanks – Thanjavoor (talk) 07:32, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
... And as we are now getting deeper into this matter, I wish to to quote to you two key statements put forward (in bold letters) on the Wikipedia main page on "Public Domain" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Public_domain
One says: In the U.S., any work published before January 1, 1923 anywhere in the world is in the public domain.
The other: If the work was in the public domain in the country of origin as of January 1, 1996, it is in the public domain in the U.S.
Kindly let me know, why these two statements (that to my view leave no doubt) do not apply to the 2 deleted pictures of mine, one of 1914, the other of the 1930s. (In your last statement in the deletion nomination the URAA date was completely ignored).
Kindly point out as well why, as an administrator, your position on the copyright of India would be of a different quality than the position of administrator Yann (you have quoted him earlier). To me as a new Wikipedian it seems difficult to accept that my contribution is being administered by conflicting views within the system. There can only be one truth. And I would like to know which one it is.
Thanks again for making clear your reasoning in the deletion matter. I will be happy to examine it in view of the Copyright Laws involved. – Thanjavoor (talk) 10:50, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If you created the content yourself, enter {{Own}} as the source. If you did not add a licensing template, you must add one. You may use, for example, {{self|GFDL|cc-by-sa-all}} or {{Cc-zero}} to release certain rights to your work.
If someone else created the content, or if it is based on someone else's work, the source should be the address to the web page where you found it, the name and ISBN of the book you scanned it from, or similar. You should also name the author, provide verifiable information to show that the content is in the public domain or has been published under a free license by its author, and add an appropriate template identifying the public domain or licensing status, if you have not already done so. Warning: Wikimedia Commons takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.
Please add the required information for this and other files you have uploaded before adding more files. If you need assistance, please ask at the help desk. Thank you!
Hi! There is no statement of this user if this image is his own work. He only gives as source information "Camera" - that's insufficient quote: If the uploader is the author, this should be stated explicitly. (e.g. "Created by uploader", "Self-made", "Own work", etc.). --High Contrast (talk) 20:51, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
He also wrote "Author: Regrothenberger" and "I, the copyright holder of this work". This seems explicit enough to me. Besides, the photo was taken only four days before it was uploaded, and he's uploaded lots of other photos which were taken using the same camera model. --Stefan4 (talk) 21:44, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Stefan! I have asked him on en:wiki. Let's see. Unfortunately the requirements for source information are clearly stated on COM:L. I think we can solve this issue very soon. Regards, High Contrast (talk) 17:35, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It says that "If the uploader is the author, this should be stated explicitly." This is what he did when he wrote "Author = Regrothenberger". --Stefan4 (talk) 18:03, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
In order to complete it: ". If the uploader is the author, this should be stated explicitly. (e.g. "Created by uploader", "Self-made", "Own work", etc.) " --High Contrast (talk) 19:58, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
And |Author = [[User:Regrothenberger|Regrothenberger]] obviously means the same thing as "Created by uploader", except that he refers to himself in third person. --Stefan4 (talk) 21:03, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Some time ago, there was a request to delete File:Fight Your Evil Side - To Leave A Trace.jpg. I answered to that request explaining that, if you download the album from Jamendo, the license file there mentions explicitly the artwork as CC:BY-SA. It did, and so the image was not deleted.
Today, I downloaded the album archive and checked the license file for File:Circa Vitae - Circa Vitae.png, and it did not mention the artwork. “What a pity”, I though. But then my mind went: “What if…”. I checked the File:Fight Your Evil Side - To Leave A Trace.jpg album license file as well, just to discover they have removed the entry for the artwork as well.
Now, today I still have proof that the artwork was CC:BY-SA. Currenly Jamendo (officially) only provides MP3 downloads, but there used to be OGG downloads as well. However, those old OGG album archives are still in their servers, and if you use the trick described here, and download the Circa Vitae album from here, you will see that the license file in the OGG archive has not been modified as it has been on the MP3 one, and it clearly states that the artwork is covered by the same license as the songs — same for the To Leave a Trace artwork. So, as I say, today there is still proof that the artwork can be shared as CC:BY-SA.
However, what happens when Jamendo finally removes the OGG archives from their servers? Or what if they edit the licenses on them as well? Well, then we have nothing.
To be honest, my personally take here is: Fuck them! If they don’t want to share their artwork under a free license, if they don’t want to have a Wikipedia article with their work, so be it! Delete those files and avoid the Wikimedia Foundation any future issue.
Hi, lots of my uploaded pictures are now deleted. Some of them I had taken myself, others were retreived from www.mobilen.no, where they at the time I uploaded them to Commons were clearly marked with a Commons-suitable licence. Can you explain why all these pictures were deleted? ChickenFalls (talk) 21:20, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This was some time ago, but if I remember correctly, you had uploaded photos of chocolate wrapping paper containing illustrations made by someone other than you. For example, I think you had uploaded a photo of Freia's milk chocolate bar wrapping paper. The paper contains a drawing of a mountain range and a few cows. Unfortunately, someone (Freia or the illustrator) holds the copyright to that drawing, and so you can't upload photos of it.
If I remember correctly, I couldn't find any statement that the images from mobilen.no were available under a free licence. As the licence claim seemed unverifiable, I tagged the images as having no evidence of permission. If you have permission to use the images, could you contact OTRS about this? Or would you be able to find the original licence statement from mobilen.no somewhere? Also: If I remember correctly, some of the images were photos of telephone screens showing non-free software. In those cases, you need permission not only from the photographer but also from the software developer (for example Apple or Google). --Stefan4 (talk) 22:46, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Most products have a design, logo and/or packaging that is copyrighted. I'm surprised that photos of food can not be uploaded to Commons. Does this mean that images like File:BB9_back.jpg, File:Rocamadour AOC.jpg, File:LeRustiqueCamembert.jpg and File:Dg milk container.jpg should be deleted? And, regarding the images from mobilen.no, these were clearly tagged with an appropriate licence at the time I uploadet them. I understand that images that contain 'telephone screens showing non-free software' are deleted, but many of these images were not of this kind. I assume that when I upload images, the link is checked by someone at the OTRS, so that the licencing is verified at this point? I find it strange that these images are deleted several years later, because the link now doesn't clearly show the licence. Do I really have to send a screenshot of the source to OTRS when I upload an image, to "secure evidence" for the future? ChickenFalls (talk) 20:32, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
About Mobilen.no: When you upload a file from an external site, you should always add the template {{Licensereview}} to the file information page. In that case, someone will eventually check that the file is available under the correct licence. When you uploaded these files, you didn't add any {{Licensereview}} template, so no one had checked them. When I looked at the files, I couldn't find any evidence that they had ever been available under a free licence. Are you able to find any evidence of this somehow? --Stefan4 (talk) 21:13, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If you send me the relevant links to stig_sunde(at)hotmail.com, I'll try to look into it. Maybe they are archived in the Wayback Machine. ChickenFalls (talk) 21:41, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I found some which haven't been deleted, for example File:Willy Jensen i Post- og teletilsynet.jpg. I found a copy of the article using the Waybackmachine. I thought that I checked this before tagging the images for having no permission, but maybe I missed that the URL currently forwards to a different location and that you have to use the old URL to get the Waybackmachine to work... Will have to be investigated further. --Stefan4 (talk) 22:44, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I can not see de deleted pages on Commons, so I am not able to look for this myself, and I don't know which pages on mobilen.no that are changed. If I get examples on mail, I could mail them to mobilen.no and ask if they can re-establish visible licencing tags below the relevant images (I have discussed licencing with them earlier, and they are very interested in our use of their images on Commons). ChickenFalls (talk) 12:37, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
NDH navy officers
You got it all wrong. That image was a scan from a book published by Mikulan and Pogacic in 1999. However, that photo was taken during WW2 and they do not own any rights of it: they found it in old WW2 newspapers and put it in their book. Please, reconsider my claim. Cheers,--Bojovnik (talk) 18:40, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Which image are you talking about? On your talk page, I see a notification about File:NDH navy officers.jpg, but the notification wasn't placed there by me; User:Denniss placed the notification there.
If the image was published in "old WW2 newspapers", then there is no evidence that the image is in the public domain. Most images in "old WW2 newspapers" are protected by copyright in the United States for 95 years since publication. I'm not sure what you mean with "NDH". If you mean w:Nezavisna Država Hrvatska, then the rule is that the photo must be anonymous and published before 1946 or taken by an identified photographer who died before 1946. Otherwise, the image is still protected by copyright in the United States and sometimes also in Croatia. Photos on Commons have to be in the public domain (or freely licensed) in both the United States and in the source country of the work. Without any more information, I am not able to verify if this is the case here. --Stefan4 (talk) 13:22, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I can't read the text at the bottom, but this doesn't look like a scan from a newspaper. The numbers and the explanations at the bottom suggest that this image comes from a different publication (for example an encyclopedia). It might previously have been published in a newspaper, but I haven't seen any evidence of this. Also, I haven't seen any evidence for the claim that the illustrator wasn't named in the initial publication. Some of this might be explained by the text at the bottom, though. {{PD-EU-no author disclosure}} only applies to works created before 1943, so that tag obviously doesn't apply if this work is from 1943, although it might apply beginning on 1 January 1943, assuming that the identity of the illustrators hasn't been revealed. --Stefan4 (talk) 21:23, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
On the last line in the image caption, it says "(S. Pogačić)" (or something similar). This seems to be the name of a person. Is this the name of the photographer? In that case, the photo isn't anonymous at all. If the photo isn't anonymous, then you need to find evidence that the photographer died before 1946. --Stefan4 (talk) 00:48, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
OK. Also, Sinisa Pogacic is the author of the book, born in 1960s, so he is not the author; that tag probably indicates he found or bought that photo and that is his contribution to the book (in order to distinguish photo contributions of other authors and ilustrators of that book) Cheers, --Bojovnik (talk) 18:47, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm commenting on this case per the request at my talk page: the photograph is free in Croatia, if there is evidence that it was originally published in Yugoslavia or elsewhere before 1 January 1975. If the country of origin is Croatia, as far as I know, it is free in the United States and therefore for Commons, if published before 1 January 1971. If it was kept in the archives and published only recently, it is still protected with the publishers' rights, and per a recent discussion at Commons:Village pump/Copyrights,[2] such images are not free for Commons. --Eleassar(t/p)09:16, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Please don't waste my time with getting your little rush out of deleting statue photos. I don't care. Delete it and find things to contribute to the project. This sort of thing isn't productive, it's bureaucratic. --Bobak (talk) 20:46, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hi! Commons is meant to be a project hosting freely licensed images which can be used for any purpose. As long as you don't have the sculptor's permission, the image is unfortunately not freely licensed, and the sculptor can sue people trying to use the image for certain purposes. It is unfortunate that the United States copyright law is written the way it is, but this isn't my fault. --Stefan4 (talk) 13:33, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sources for PD coin images
I protest the stupidity on my talk page. Don't you really have anything better to do than leave same four templates on a no-issue? First of all the images have specific license tag which covers their origin and copyright status, there is no additional artistry in creating 2D reproduction of coins, and even, if anyone wanted to double check, they would easily find bank's website without exact link (plus why the guess that this must have been found online? One could easily scan a coin they own and get the same thing). And secondly another user has uploaded higher resolution images and explicitly stated source website they used ~~Xil (talk) 00:56, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
See COM:ART#Photograph of an old coin found on the Internet: you can't upload photos of coins without permission from the photographer. Thus, it is necessary to tell where the photos come from so that it can be verified that the photographer indeed has permitted people to use the photos. The licence {{Latvian coins}} says that it is permitted to reproduce the coins themselves, but it doesn't say whether photos published on the central bank's website are in the public domain or not. --Stefan4 (talk) 01:10, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
These coins are not old, they have PD license because it is a state issued item - law states that Bank has the copyright, but they can be freely reproduced as long as certain rules are met. And reproduction isn't really derivative work as it contains no new original details, which would create additional authorship; one probably can argue that photograph of an old coin may require some additional artistry to capture aged details exactly, but here we have (among other possible web sources) copyright owner spreading reproductions they obviously made themselves. ~~Xil (talk) 22:01, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Your opinion pls
Hi Stefan. Can you please take a quick look at the PDFs in Category:Familia? These go from the early 1880s up to 1906. They're tagged under {{PD-Romania}}. I'm not quite sure how they fall under this rationale, and so I hope you can give me your opinion on if they're legit or not. Thanks for your time. INeverCry17:54, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure either. I checked the first (File:Familia 1872-12-24, nr. 52.pdf) and the last issue (File:Familia 1906-12-03, nr. 39.pdf) and a random one in the middle (File:Familia 1887-05-10, nr. 19.pdf). At the end of many of the articles and stories, there is a personal name, which I take is the name of the author, meaning that the texts aren't anonymous. A small number of texts do not contain a name at the end, so those texts might be in the public domain as anonymous texts published more than 70 years ago.
{{PD-Romania}} lists lots of strange terms which at first seem to be incompatible with w:Copyright Duration Directive#Copyright restoration, but maybe the template is permitted somehow due to the fact that Romania wasn't a member of the European Union back in 1995.
I see only three possible rules which might apply:
It is another kind of work, and 70 years have passed since the year of death of the author (or last-surviving author)
Likely the case with the ones from the 1870s (although we can't be 100% certain), and it gets very shaky with the 1906 ones.
The copyright is owned by the author's descendants, and the author died before 1946 (50 pma)
Essentially the same thing, except that it's 1946 instead of 1943. A little more likely, but still too uncertain for the 1906 ones.
The copyright is owned by someone older than 25 other than immediate family or descendants, and the author died before 1981 (15 pma)
This definitely doesn't look correct. I tried looking at the old law, but it's in Romanian, so it's hard to read. I suspect that the requirement instead is that the copyright holder must have been at least 25 years old before the law was changed in 1996. I'll ask User:Clindberg who added that part. Also, it seems that this would require non-standard transfer of copyright: transfer of copyright through a contract or a will. We can't assume that this is the case without further information about the authors.
Unless I've missed something, I don't think that we have enough information to verify that the texts indeed are in the public domain in Romania. Also, the 1906 issue contains a translation of a text by someone called Stefan Bársony (probably hu:Bársony István (író)) which should probably have a Hungarian {{PD-old-70}} licence instead of a Romanian licence. It is possible that there also are foreign works in some of the other issues.
I think that a multiple-choice template like {{PD-Romania}} is bad: you need to spend a long time to verify if any of the situations applies. I think that it would be better to deprecate it and replace it by separate templates for each possible situation. --Stefan4 (talk) 19:41, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe, maybe not. I don't know exactly what the first clause covers, and I wasn't aware of it during the deletion discussion. Maybe it only covers text. --Stefan4 (talk) 17:24, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Paul Holloway
Hi Stefan,
Could you do me a favour and go ahead and delete anything doubtful in Category:Photos by Paul Holloway? I happily uploaded photos from this stream because I saw a set with many great photos, but I obviously did not pay enough attention to all the other sets. Many of these photos are out of scope or pose copyright problems for photos that are not valuable enough to do the research for. I have learned a valuable lesson and will try a lot hard to avoid being as sloppy as this again. Thanks for your help in raising several up for deletion already. --Fæ (talk) 17:18, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I've added {{Speedy}} to a few images which I think unambiguously are out of scope: unused photos of people with unknown surname. I only scanned the beginning of the category, and lots of more files should in my opinion also be deleted. --Stefan4 (talk) 17:38, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sharky60-You are correct in asserting you are wrong. This pix was taken during the World cup by my wife and is not a scanned copy of a printed publication. Therefore legitimately USABLE under the Wiki guidelines, thus remove the deletion request, thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sharky60 (talk • contribs) 2013-03-16T08:41:13 (UTC)
coin copyright
Hi Stefan4,
Sorry, but I think you have a misconception of the copyright for modern coins:
Copyright of modern coins does not mean that you cannot picture such coins in price lists, catalogues, encyclopaedias etc. A copyright to such an extent would be a contradiction, because such coins especially the commemorative issues are just made for the purpose of being offered in price lists and catalogues, and made known in encyclopaedias.
Copyright means not to copy such coins (fake the coins), and putting the copies into circulation.
As you are a deleter of pictures, could I kindly ask you to delete the following pictures (they are mine, I put them on Commons to show them to my sponsor, not for them to stay)
As for my picture(s) of the European Parliament, I suppose transparency of democracy does not allow citizens of Planet Earth to see them so you might as well delete them, I no longer care
I can't delete images. Why should those two images be deleted? They don't seem to be copyright violations and they could arguably be educational (see for example this page).
The problem is that the Belgian government has decided that you shouldn't be able to take photos of recent buildings. It would be very nice if the Belgian government could change its mind, but until that happens, there is not much we can do other than deleting photos of the European Parliament. --Stefan4 (talk) 22:40, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I was just glancing through your talk page and I noted your comment that the Belgian government has restricted taking photographs of recent buildings. Can you provide a link to this law? And how do you explain the retention of this photograph in the commons? Modern buildings are evident including the European Parliament.Mattnad (talk) 19:38, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Belgian law is explained at COM:FOP#Belgium. The rule is that you can't upload photographs of buildings in Belgium unless the architect has been dead for at least 70 years. It is the uploader's responsibility to specify who the architect is and when the architect died. --Stefan4 (talk) 10:33, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, Stefan, you're unfortunately right. I didn't notice the source information in the English Wikipedia was certainly dubious. I'll ask for permission in there. Thank you for noticing :-) --Ecemamltalk to me/habla conmigo07:55, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
OTRS form
Hi Stefan, remember me? Can you send me a form by email, User:Dr. Blofeld on wikipedia click e"mail this user" which I can send to somebody I want to arrange images with and OTRS ticket for. and them to send back and authorise to enable an easy OTRS. I remember there was a full form for them to authorize just to ensure there was no hang ups with the agreement. Please let me know on wikipedia and send the email form, cheers. I might also need you to help seal the OTRS after it. OK?Blofeld Dr. (talk) 15:53, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, Stefan4. Do you speak French ? It would be really much easier for me.
You reverted and wrote : The quote clearly tells that such images aren't OK if the building is the main subject of the photo and if the photo is used commercially. I noticed that it was written and; not or.
The distinction between and or or seems to me in this case to be important, and makes me undestand that if a building is not the main subject, the image is commercially usable.
PS : The full quote is : It is permitted, without authorization by the author or payment of any remuneration, to reproduce, broadcast or communicate by cable to the public the image of a work of architecture, fine arts, photography or applied art that is permanently located in a place open to the public, except where the image of the work is the principal subject of such reproduction or broadcast or communication and is used for commercial purposes. --Frenchinmorocco (talk) 19:44, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Il est évident qu'il n'y a pas du liberté de panorama commercial au Maroc et Commons n'accepte pas des images qu'on ne peut pas utiliser commercialement. Une photographie d'une ville va bien parce-que aucune maison est le sujet principal. Voir aussi Commons talk:Freedom of panorama#Morocco. --Stefan4 (talk) 23:04, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I USA gäller upphovsrätten i 95 år från publicering. 1936+95 blir 2031, så upphovsrätten går ut i USA den 1 januari 2032. Även om affischen är anonym, förföll inte upphovsrätten i Sverige före 2007, så affischen var upphovsrättsskyddad på URAA-dagen. URAA-regeln är väldigt irriterande... --Stefan4 (talk) 23:16, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Stefan, hope you're well. Have you considered running for Commons adminship? If this is something you're interested in, I'd be delighted to nominate you at RfA. -FASTILY00:37, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Dear Stefan, I saw your request here! But you can usurp this name in nl.wp (Without any activity) and de.wp (7 months without any contributions) easily! I'd usurp my username in 34 wikis! It was seems impossible but I could do that! You need a consistency. I hope, You can do it! With respect: --MehdiTalk17:31, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
German Wikipedia doesn't permit usurpation of accounts which have made any edits, and that account has made more than 900 edits. Same issue on Commons. Also, I'm not sure if it is entirely legal to move accounts with edits without consent from the account holder, since the CC-BY-SA licence states that you have to attribute the author properly. If you rename an account, you change the attribution a bit. Besides, it might make the user upset. My request at Dutch Wikipedia was declined, and as I make very few edits to that project (two so far this year), I haven't bothered any more about that. I've usurped accounts at maybe 5-10 other projects. --Stefan4 (talk) 21:36, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
:( It's bad. It's My gift for Your user page. If you like, You can use it.
فارسی: من از نام کاربری سراسریStefan2 استفاده میکنم اما بدلیل آنکه این نام کاربری در انبار توسط فرد دیگری استفاده میشود، نام کاربری Stefan4 را برای اینجا برگزیدهام.
Yes, that will solve things to me. I think that this will be very convenient as I will no longer have to log in twice, once for English Wikipedia and once for Commons. However, it will probably make other users upset. See for example this discussion where two users with the same name who are quarrelling about the right to that name on certain projects. This is partially why I haven't bothered so much about trying to usurp the last three accounts: I don't want to make the guy on Commons and German Wikipedia upset. However, it seems that the Wikimedia Foundation has decided to make these users upset anyway. I hope that the Foundation has discussed the legal implications of renamed accounts (and thus changed attribution). --Stefan4 (talk) 12:03, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
File:EmploymentAndUnemploymentInGreece.png has been marked as a possible copyright violation. Wikimedia Commons only accepts free content—that is, images and other media files that can be used by anyone, for any purpose. Traditional copyright law does not grant these freedoms, and unless noted otherwise,everything you find on the web is copyrighted and not permitted here. For details on what is acceptable, please read Commons:Licensing. You may also find Commons:Copyright rules useful, or you can ask questions about Commons policies at the Commons:Help desk. If you are the copyright holder and the creator of the file, please read Commons:But it's my own work! for tips on how to provide evidence of that.
The file you added may soon be deleted. If you have written permission from the copyright holder, please replace the copyvio tag with {{subst:OP}} and have them send us a free license release via COM:VRT. If you disagree that the file is a copyright violation for any other reason, please replace the copyvio tag with a regular deletion request.
Warning: Wikimedia Commons takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.
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!
Lithuania has no FOP so this display is not OK for Commons, is that right? Like Sweden. Just curious. If the answer is that it is not OK, please kindly, file a DR. I replied in your other DR on the Swedish temporary display. Thank You, --Leoboudv (talk) 22:00, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Lithuania has non-commercial freedom of panorama which is not OK for Commons. I saw this file one or two days ago but didn't know what to do since I'm not sure if it passes COM:DM or not. --Stefan4 (talk) 22:17, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You are right. It could pass De Minimis. Maybe, I'd better do nothing...and ask Admin Lymantria. Thanks anyway, trusted user Leoboudv from Vancouver, --Leoboudv (talk) 01:58, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I made a brief comment here. But in the end, its up to an Admin to decide. I don't know why ISAF was listed as a blacklisted account. It seems strange but perhaps some images were uploaded by non-US sources? I don't know. Best Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 20:58, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe ISAF has uploaded images from multiple sources without always indicating the correct licensing status? That could explain why ISAF is blacklisted. --Stefan4 (talk) 21:19, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I guess that ISAF image came from a US web site as this edit shows. Most people upload from ISAF/flickr since its easier. Goodnight from Canada where its 1:27 AM, --Leoboudv (talk) 08:27, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
{{PD-old}} means that the person who made the logos (called "Unknown author" on some of those pages) died before 1943. Where do I find the evidence that he died before 1943? --Stefan4 (talk) 23:00, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"Desconhecido" means "Unknown" in portuguese, when I uploaded the images I didn't know who created the logos, the first ones where created by José Rosa Rodrigues, one of the founders and the first president of the club (from 1904 to 1906 and after that he was director and player) http://www.slbenfica.pt/pt-pt/slb/hist%C3%B3ria/listapresidentes/joserosarodrigues.aspx (he died in 1937)
An interesting tidbit you added here. Do you know why the court ruled the way it did? The law bans uses "where reproduction is made for the purpose of selling its copies" (which is not the same as banning all commercial use), and putting the picture in an advertisement doesn't sound like "selling its copies" to me. -- King of♥♦♣ ♠ 07:35, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It says that the advertisements were made by a company called Pomato (포마토) on behalf of Kungmin Ŭnhaeng, and it was Pomato who was fined. Maybe Pomato sold the advertisements to the bank? It says that there were advertisement films for television and the Internet and paper advertisements for magazines. I assume that magazines containing the advertisements were sold, so copies of the house were definitely sold. There is an article in English here with partially different information. The English article also lists a threshold of originality criterion, but it doesn't help us much here as this building appears to be one of the most creative buildings you could think of (try making a Google search for "UV 하우스"). I'm not aware of any other cases to compare with. --Stefan4 (talk) 14:08, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You have marked the file Rita Sargsyan.jpg for speedy deletion while there is no copyright violation. The website I took the picture from and provided the link for [5] has a licence cc-by-nd licence at the bottom of the page which gives permission "to share — to copy, distribute and transmit the work" and "to make commercial use of the work". Please reconsider.--Roses&guns (talk) 12:16, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
On the file information page, it says that the file is available under the licence CC-BY, but the source lists CC-BY-ND. As there is no evidence that the copyright holder has agreed to dropping the "ND" part, I tagged the file for lack of evidence of permission. You may have noticed that the template {{Cc-by-nd}} redirects to a speedy deletion template: CC-BY-ND is not accepted on Commons. You uploaded the same file to English Wikipedia where you only mentioned CC-BY-ND, so that copy was nominated for. speedy deletion per w:WP:CSD#F3. --Stefan4 (talk) 12:39, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
CC-BY-ND is neither permitted by Commons nor by Wikipedia. Only licences which satisfy Freedomdefined:Definition are permitted, and CC-BY-ND doesn't satisfy that definition because it prevents you from modifying the image. --Stefan4 (talk) 13:28, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There is no evidence of that, though, and the image appeared on a different website before it was uploaded to Serbian Wikipedia. --Stefan4 (talk) 15:05, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
hi Stefan4. You placed a template on my talk page about a missing permission and/or incorrect license for file File:Belgian eID card.jpg. I'm however not the original uploader. Although I did edit that file and its information page, I simply assumed the Public Domain license to be correct and left it alone. If Belgian government publications are not PD, I can't help out and I suggest you contact the original uploader. His user id is listed on the file information page. Kind regards, Jahoe (talk) 23:18, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Adding to that: if Belgian government publications are not PD (and I assume that is your problem), I believe you can simply list the file for deletion. Obviously nor me nor the original uploader can give permission on behalf of the Belgian state. Jahoe (talk) 23:31, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The original uploader wrote that the Belgian government has released the image to the public domain, but didn't provide any evidence of this. The copyright status of government works varies from country to country, and the original uploader hasn't provided any evidence that the claim is correct. As you had uploaded a version of the file, both you and the original uploader received a notification about this. The "no permission" template gives you and the original uploader a week to provide evidence of permission, and if no evidence is provided, the file is normally deleted after that week is over. That is, if no evidence of a public domain release is provided, then the file will presumably be deleted at some point after 1 May. --Stefan4 (talk) 13:12, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The source web site of both the original version and the version I've uploaded is correctly specified on the file's information page. This is private company web site made on behalf of the Belgian government. It carries a statement about free use of its contents which I interpret as public domain, although that term is not used literally.
I don't mind if the file will be deleted, but I do believe you have to explain the problem first. I don't see a clue that the site is a forge, the free use statement is false, or whatever. Please explain.
I've already explained that I'm not a Belgian official, and cannot send email to OTRS on behalf of the Belgian state. Giving me a week makes no sense, I won't be a Belgian official next week. Nor do I see why OTRS is required, the source web site is accessible to anyone.
The page http://eid.belgium.be/en/gebruiksvoorwaarden.jsp tells that "Unless indicated otherwise, the texts on this website may be reproduced at no cost for any non-commercial use and shared with the public." It also says that "The photos shown on this website may only be reproduced or shared with the public with the express, written and prior consent of Fedict" and I can't tell whether this image counts as a photo of an ID card or as a different image. Non-commercial restrictions are not OK for Commons, see {{Noncommercial}}. Can you find any permission anywhere else? --Stefan4 (talk) 21:51, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
Done Commons:Deletion requests/Files on User talk:Stefan4 --Stefan4 (talk) 17:49, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
![[3]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Circling_1978-1987_by_Dejan_Stojanovic.jpg){kind=link}
![[4]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Krugovanje_by_Dejan_Stojanovi%C4%87_(Second_Edition).jpg){kind=link}
Comment: I guess that ISAF image came from a US web site as this edit shows. Most people upload from ISAF/flickr since its easier. Goodnight from Canada where its 1:27 AM, --Leoboudv (talk) 08:27, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
.png){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}
