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.
Bonjour Stefan
Encore un dommage collatéral du juridisme anglo saxon! Au pays de Montesquieu, il conviendrait peut-être de relire L' Esprit des lois ! N'est-il pas stupide de supprimer que le contribuable paie à grand frais pour l'information du public ?...
Je comprends que bien des contributeurs finissent par se lasser.
Tu peux donc supprimer rapidement
Merci Daniel Villafruela (talk) 08:04, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
Enligt den länken är svenska sedlar upphovsrättsskyddade precis som vilket annat verk som helst. Dessutom ges det en massa instruktioner om hur man kan undvika att åka fast för förfalskningsbrott. Vissa mynt, t.ex. ena sidan av 5-kronan, faller under {{PD-ineligible}}. I övrigt måste man vänta tills konstnären varit död i minst 70 år. Se svar på ena raderingssidan. --Stefan4 (talk) 19:29, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
user Stefan4 does not reply, does not explain his thinking, and does not reply to email. So my vote is KEEP (I am not skilled in doing the delete/keep logos). It would be beneficial if Stefan4 actually contacts me and explain how he is reasoning. --Janwikifoto (talk) 16:28, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
Please contact me, to explain your thinking. You obviously understand swedish, and I snet you email, so it would be better to talk. You can also meet me in person in Stockholm. Vänligen kontakta mig, du förstår uppenbarligen svenska, och jag har skickat email, så det vore bättre att prata. Du kan även kontakta mig i person i Stockholm. Jag exister, är en verklig person. --Janwikifoto (talk) 19:47, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
I have checked the original rotation of all my more than 3,000 uploads one by one (3-day full work!).
Please do not interfere with my rotation requests.
I assume that you mean that I requested rotation for something for which you already had requested rotation for. User:Umherirrender made a useful page for searching for images needing rotation. User:Rillke later made a useful script for requesting rotation: there is a button to reset the rotation done by the MediaWiki software (which is usually correct for old images), but the script does not tell if rotation has already been requested by anyone else. On the other hand, this should not matter since the end result will be the same. --Stefan4 (talk) 12:10, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
Dear Stefan, I have asked in the previous days a rotation for about 700 of my pictures, which has occurred in the meantime.
Dear Stefan: Sorry, I am having trouble understanding what I should do about the current rush of image rotations. I do understand that in some process of upgrading they have been rotated from their original orientation. Then I see some automatic bot is going through and resetting them. It would seem to me that it should be possible to reset them to their original position without me doing anything. Is this correct? When I check the various links in the notice on each file's page I cannot understand whether I should add notes or not. If so, it is going to be a big job and as I am not well and bedridden with a house full of guests for Christmas I really don't know how I am going to do this. Also, shouldn't I wait until the automatic reorientation actually takes place and then leave a note on each page if it was not successful? Would you please advise? Best wishes for the holiday season and through the new year. sincerely, John E. Hill (talk) 21:48, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
Sorry to bother you. I think I have figured out how to use the rotation request tool now and so I am going through and doing all the ones I have been contacted about. If there are any problems with what I am doing please don't hesitate to let me know. Sincerely, John E. Hill (talk) 22:19, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
Dear Mr. Hill, I am sorry for meddling but I hope you won't mind. Information about the auto-rotations are collected at COM:ROTATEFIX. We are working on a list to undo the damage created by the last MediaWiki-Update. So wait 2 or 3 weeks and then, all images should be fixed. Of course you can request rotation by yourself to speed this up for your photos. We are volunteers. If you want to talk to the software-developers responsible for the current situation or want to know more details, write to wikitech-l. Thank you. Regards -- RE rillkequestions?22:21, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
The links go to full resolution images. Do you mean that the full resolution images are correct when viewed in your web browser, or do you mean that the thumbnails at File:Ottelia alismoidesRHu1.JPG and File:Trapa natans01.jpg are correct? The {{Rotate}} template tells the bot to fix the image so that both the full resolution image and the thumbnails get the orientation of the full resolution image. Is this correct? --Stefan4 (talk) 18:22, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
When I am clicking on the link "Full resolution" the rotation of the two full-resolution images is correct, but the thumbnails should be rotated by 90° and 270, respectively (clockwise, from portrait to landscape). --Réginald alias Meneerke bloem (To reply) 20:56, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
That was exactly what my rotation templates said. The only thing you changed was that you moved the images back in the rotation queue, postponing their rotation by around two days. --Stefan4 (talk) 11:45, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
Thank you for your reply. I have no problem with the delay, as long as eventually the rotation occurs correctly. Best regards from Belgium (Bonjour de Belgique, Groetjes vanuit België, Grüße aus Belgien), --Réginald alias Meneerke bloem (To reply) 12:38, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
PS: I still do not understand why these two pictures, which I have uploaded several months ago and the thumbnails of which were correctly oriented till last week, became suddenly misoriented a few days ago. Is there some instability of the system?
No. If you upload an image and the image is shown on a Wiki-page, even the file-description-page, thumbnails are generated and saved on the server. MediaWiki 1.17 did not rotate them according to the Exif-data. But MediaWiki 1.18 does. Your and many other files contained such Exif-orientation-data.
Some weeks ago, the hard-drive-space on the computers that store the thumbnails was not enough. Therefore the server-administrators deleted the old thumbnails from MediaWiki 1.17 which caused that new thumbnails had to be generated. This time with Exif-rotation. So the wrong rotation was not done by a bot (Bots have accounts and you see them in the revision-history) but by a Software-change of MediaWiki.
I guess it was marked for rotation by mistake. With so many photos being marked as needing rotation, it comes as no surprise that some images might have been tagged incorrectly, but it is good that you noticed it. I have reverted the image to its original orientation. --Stefan4 (talk) 15:46, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
It is easy to understand that if there are tens of thousands of rotation requests, there will be some false positives. Thank you for the action taken. As for the talkback-template, I think it was never really used in the Dutch Wikipedia (I didn't even know something like that existed). - Robotje (talk) 19:48, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
File:Villaggio leumann collegno 02.jpg
Hi Stefan, I'm afraid you rotated the wrong file:
Villaggio leumann collegno 02.jpg looks quite odd now!
Let mi know, please --Dimod61 (talk) 11:19, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
Stefan is not responsible for this appearance. It is a Software-change in MediaWiki (the server-software). Stafan added a template requesting Rotatebot to undo the change automagically done by MediaWiki. Read COM:ROTATEFIX and if you have still questions, you may ask here. Thank you. -- RE rillkequestions?11:41, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
Thanks and sorry - for some reason I thought you were de-n speaker (maybe place a babel box on your page(s)). :-) Have nice days! --Saibo (Δ) 18:24, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
PIONER Russia
Русский: Логотип проекта Федеральной программы нравственного и патриотического воспитания детей "ПИОНЕРЫ РОССИИ", Министерства образования и науки Российской Федерации
English: Project Logo of the Federal program of moral and patriotic education of children "Pioneers Of Russia", the Ministry of education and science of the Russian Federation
That was out of about 8 log pages. I do not know if that is much or few errors as I do not know which percentage of old uploads have correct EXIF (like those two here). :-) Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 01:47, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
Really no problem - many files, some mistakes. :-) Just telling so you know the errors and can optimize your actions. Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 15:38, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
Thank you for your possible violation of copyright Check. KMVavia and Alitalia - Linee Aeree Italiane are two airlines that were closed during last years, so can you explain me why they are not considered as a free content, i have seen some airlines tickets scans on commons and some of them are of exsiting airlines. Thank you in advance. --User:Alesseus (User talk:Alesseus) 13:13, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
The tickets have already been deleted by someone, so I can't check what the reason was. Presumably, they contained non-trivial text or art. In that case, they are copyrighted by someone until 70 years after the last author or artist has died. The fact that the airlines no longer exist is irrelevant. --Stefan4 (talk) 12:28, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
I tagged many images in en:Category:PD US money as lacking source and licence, but there might be images on English Wikipedia which aren't listed in that category and I didn't have the time to check everything. --Stefan4 (talk) 13:05, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
– Pour éventuellement argumenter dans l’un ou l’autre sens, pouvez-vous rappeler les règles précises de violation de copyright qui s’appliquent à ce document ? Je vous remercie. […]
Je ne sais pas si, sur Commons, la charge de la preuve est à fournir par le procureur, ou si elle est du ressort de la défense. Dans les deux cas, elle me paraît très difficile à apporter.
Si je comprends correctement le lien :
– l’image doit avoir été utilisée la première fois avant 1942 ?
– l’image doit avoir été utilisée la première fois après 1942 ? Quels arguments avez-vous pour dater cette première utilisation après cette date qui vous permet de proposer la suppression du fichier ?
I thought that it wasn't interesting since the {{Own}} tag already contains the necessary information (and formally speaking, the text also appears in the quote of the original upload log), but never mind: I've added the text to a more visible place now. I'm currently trying to move over English Wikipedia images needing rotation to Commons so that they can be rotated. --Stefan4 (talk) 10:30, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
Your actions against two illustrations: Willem ten Berge en Liturgiekkrant
Beste Stefan4,
De ingreep om een foto van de dichtbundel van de cover van Willem ten Berge uit 1926 te verwijderen.
Mijn vader was dichter en schrijver, hij was goed bevriend met Jozef Cantre, die voor hem de cover maakte.
De rechten op de cover van deze bundel zijn in overleg met mijn broers al jaren geleden door ons vrij gegeven, o.a. aan het Letterkundig Museum, die hem ook al eens opnam in en catalogus.
(my picture of the cover of the poetrybook of my father, already given free of rights by the family, long ago)
De andere ingreep in en gedeeltelijke afbeelding van de Liturgiekrant verbaast me ook. Het daardoor gedeeltelijk in beeld gekomen artikel is van mij. Ik was 14 jaar hoofdredacteur van deze krant, en dient slechts, vanwege de kop als illustratie voor het gescheidensiverhaal van de vredesweekthema's.
(my picture - partly! - of the paper, contains an article of the writer and that was me and a collegue, it is meant as an illustration of the themes of the so called paeceweek in the Netherlands).
Alsjeblieft nergens aankomen dus, met rechten en zo moeten we ook geen spijkers op laag water zoeken!
De Amerikaanse regering maakt het al moeilijk genoeg! (Please, don't create problems, when and where there are not!)
Section 302
(a) In General.— Copyright in a work created on or after January 1, 1978, subsists from its creation and, except as provided by the following subsections, endures for a term consisting of the life of the author and 70 years after the author’s death.
(b) Joint Works.— In the case of a joint work prepared by two or more authors who did not work for hire, the copyright endures for a term consisting of the life of the last surviving author and 70 years after such last surviving author’s death.
(c) Anonymous Works, Pseudonymous Works, and Works Made for Hire.— In the case of an anonymous work, a pseudonymous work, or a work made for hire, the copyright endures for a term of 95 years from the year of its first publication, or a term of 120 years from the year of its creation, whichever expires first.
303. Duration of copyright: Works created but not published or copyrighted before January 1, 1978
How Current is This?
(a) Copyright in a work created before January 1, 1978, but not theretofore in the public domain or copyrighted, subsists from January 1, 1978, and endures for the term provided by section 302. In no case, however, shall the term of copyright in such a work expire before December 31, 2002; and, if the work is published on or before December 31, 2002, the term of copyright shall not expire before December 31, 2047.
Those sections don't deal with works published before 1978. Anything published in 1978 or later would generally be copyrighted anyway since it is so recent. You should instead look here. It says that those works are subject to a 28 year copyright which can, if renewed, be extended by an additional 67 years, giving 95 years in total. Because of changes in the copyright law, works first published in 1964 or later are extended automatically. Foreign works are neither required to have copyright notices or to extend copyrights. US copyright rules are very complex, but all possible situations are explained here. --Stefan4 (talk) 17:47, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
Hello! With regard to the deletion request mentioned on my Talk page, I am not clear on where I should/would leave a comment. But I can say that I am not familiar with copyright issues surrounding signatures, and if the signature is problematic, then by all means—please delete it! Thank you for the heads-up and any forthcoming direction! Londonjackbooks (talk) 00:53, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
File:Knovel_logo.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!
The above two images were released to the public domain by the American Bullnese Association and its creator, Robert Rice, to help illustrate the wikipedia article on the American Bullnese. I worked hand and hand with the breed creator to develop the article. These images are not copyright of Dogbreedinfo.com. As is stated on the dogbreedinfo.com site, the images came to them courtesy of the American Bullnese Association. If we could work together to get these images undeleted and restored to the article, that would be very much appreciated. Thank you, Libby - American Bullnese wiki article
Please keep the discussion at one place. Since you posted a slightly longer message on my Wikipedia talk page, I'm continuing there. --Stefan4 (talk) 00:25, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
Seriously, I don't get what is wrong with the photo. That is not too much artwork, that was really taken in that exact spot in that place by a camera. PatrickA.Tagle35 (talk) 19:43, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
I am trying to improve and maintain a few wiki pages, NCLab, Hermes Project to name two. I am a research assistant helping develop STEM Education. I have express permission to use the images displayed, they are meant to be distributed and used for any purpose. What would you recommend as a license. All our software is available through github or via our browser interface (NCLab). Please advise? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.9.16.137 (talk • contribs)
Hello, if you look into Terms of Use, they clearly say that NCLab is free for personal, noncommercial purposes. They also
have the following Image Policy: Anyone can take screenshots from the front page slider as well as from inside of NCLab and all its graphical applications, and use them in any way, as long as the source (NCLab) is mentioned. So I believe that there is no reason to
delete the images. If you have a different opinion, please let me know. Thank you! PavelSolin (talk) 08:58, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
Stefan, I too was headed for the deletion button. Alternatively, tell me how to fix the license. I can also get the bank to do a fax somewhere. But where? Thank you. Doug youvan (talk) 16:10, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
Bonjour Stefan2/4. Je ne suis pas d'accord avec vous concernant les fichiers provenant du site http://www.heraldique-europeenne.org, lequel sont assujettis au droit d'auteur.
Pour faire court : les fr:blasonnements échappent aux règles des droits d'auteur, mais leurs représentations est soumises aux mêmes règles que les autres œuvres, c'est le cas de ces blasons dessinés aux XX-XXIe siècles (en détail, voir : fr:Projet:Blasons/Droit d'auteur). Voilà pourquoi, amha, les fichiers suivant doivent être supprimés (on notera qu'ils ont tous une version svg libre d'utilisation) :
I have updated the File:Georgia diplomatic relations.png map according to the Bilateral Relations page from the official Georgian Foreign Ministry Web Site: http://www.mfa.gov.ge/index.php?lang_id=ENG&sec_id=61 In the Bilateral Relations list, countries with whom Georgia has diplomatic relations appear in red and those without appear in grey. There is an internal link to each country name colored in red. An exception should be noted, that Macedonia also appears in red as it has an internal link, but there are no diplomatic relations between them. I have checked each country and in each country page is stated, if Georgia has diplomatic relations with them.
Sorry for replying so late, because I do not visit and update in Wikimedia Commons very frequently. Kindest regards.
Filen hade EXIF-orientering angiven och laddades upp innan Mediawiki började att bry sig om detta, så jag trodde att den behövde roteras. Den ser dock bättre ut utan rotation, så jag har återställt den. Detta betyder alltså att bilden felaktigt varit roterad på engelska Wikipedia hela tiden från 2007 och fram till slutet av 2011 utan att någon har upptäckt detta. --Stefan4 (talk) 21:38, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
Tak for svaret :-) Jeg har ikke helt styr på detaljerne, men der er ændret et eller andet i wiki-koden, så billeder der før stod rigtigt står nu forkert. Så jeg er ikke sikker på, at billedet stod forkert i 2007. Men billedet står rigtigt nu, og det er det vigtigste. User:Saibo ved alt om teknikken, så hvis du vil vide mere så kan du spørge ham. Han er tit på IRC. --MGA73 (talk) 09:20, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
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!
Le 26 décembre 2011, vous demandâtes la suppression du fichier File:Etiquette MONCHELET.jpg. Vous y apposâtes l’information de demande de suppression.
Depuis maintenant plus de sept semaines le statut de cette image n’est pas géré. Je vous propose de finir votre procédure. Soit :
– ce fichier n’a pas sa place sur Commons, il doit être enlevé ;
– ce fichier n’enfreint pas les règles de Commons, vous voudrez bien effacer ce disgracieux panneau.
Dans l’une ou l’autre alternative, il faut clore la procédure ; la crédibilité de votre demande et celle de Commons de n’héberger que des fichiers « légaux » sont en question…
But at the same time, you removed the licence. Please don't do that. The page had previously been fixed by the previous uploader. --Stefan4 (talk) 19:25, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
Those are Icelandic coins I own and scanned. That's the fact. I've got no time now to lose, so erase them right now, right now, ara mateix. It's quite clear what they are and if the Bank of Iceland really owns their copyright as somebody stated there (I think it was somebody else who marked them that way) may be they can stay. Otherwise I haven't the slightest intention to defend their presence in this site. I have stopped uploanding coins of anything that is not well dead centuries ago. Lose no time and erase them all. By the way, I've also stopped uploading anything in Luxembourg (where everything is copyrighted, it seems) but I have uploaded some pictures of Serra Perenxisa, where I used to live. As far as I know, Serra Perenxisa was made by plate tectonics sometime ago. I've been trying to contact God and Mother Nature in order to get their permission to upload the pics. No answer yet. Should I have to apply for their removal?
The reason is COM:ART#Photograph of an old coin found on the Internet. A coin is a 3D object, so the photographer owns the copyright to the photo. For that reason, you need to specify that you took the photos and that you agree to licence the photo under a free licence. Since you wrote that you took the photos yourself, I have added a statement to the file information pages stating that you took the photos. The licence problem could be solved by adding, for example, {{CC-BY-SA-3.0}} to all of the file information pages, if you agree on distributing the photos under the CC-BY-SA 3.0 licence.
There is also an unresolved question regarding recent Icelandic money. There are currently two statements on Commons, one saying that it is allowed and one saying that it isn't allowed, and there is currently a discussion at COM:VPC#Icelandic currency. The {{Icelandic currency}} template might not be valid.
Your problems with Luxembourg might be related to freedom of panorama: in some countries, such as Luxembourg, you can't take a photo of a building unless the architect died at least 70 years ago. It's stupid, I know, but that is how the law is written. In other countries, such as Spain, it is legal to take a photo of any building. --Stefan4 (talk) 00:41, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
To say that in Italy there's not freedom of panorama is not technically exact. Actually the only law that protects the copyright is 70+ yrs old (1941) which says nothing about photos taken in public places (as opposite as Belgian and Dutch laws that set some limitations). It's supposed (and I underline supposed) that a copyrighted work (with artistic - cultural - etc. relevance, not a simple building with no artistic value), no matter where placed, can't be photographed safely if their author is still alive or has died less than 70 yrs ago. For the sake of the project I am pretending that Italy has no FoP and acting as such, but note that a member of the Government, expressely inquired about the point, said that (this is the official site of the Chamber (the bold are mine) "In Italia, non essendo prevista una disciplina specifica, deve ritenersi lecito e quindi possibile fotografare liberamente tutte le opere visibili, dal nuovo edificio dell'Ara Pacis al Colosseo, per qualunque scopo anche commerciale salvo che, modificando o alterando il soggetto, non si arrivi ad offenderne il decoro ed i valori che esso esprime" (translated: In Italy, not existing a specific law [about FoP] can be considered legal , thus allowed, freely photographing any exposed work, from the new Ara Pacis building (2000s) to the Colosseum, for any purpose, even commercial with the limitation of not alterating the subject the way it might be considered offensive towards the values that [the work] expresses).
Also note that there was never any official pronouncement about FoP by our Supreme Court, nor there were any cases in court about that. -- Blackcat (talk) 23:07, 20 February 2012 (UTC) P.S. Of course this doesn't apply to cultural and artistic works hosted in Museums, that are the subject of another law that forbids their photographic reproduction without authorisation.
If you are talking about deletion requests about buildings and/or statues in CIS countries, there is already a policy which says that they are not allowed unless the copyright has expired, see COM:FOP#Former Soviet Union and COM:FOP#Russia. The deletion requests are only about following existing policies. --Stefan4 (talk) 23:10, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
Onödigt?
Kanske är det onödigt att lägga in raderingsvarningar hos användare som bara har redigerat bilderna som andra har laddat upp? Det finns ju kategorier för bilder som har vattenmärken som ska tas bort, användarna som gör det har ju inget med uppladdningen att göra eller något ansvar för eventuella brott mot upphovsrätten.--Ankara (talk) 23:15, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
Visual File Change lägger in raderingsvarningar för alla som laddat upp en version av bilderna. Vet inte om man kan ändra det på något sätt. Jag håller med om att det kan leda till en del onödiga raderingsvarningar. --Stefan4 (talk) 23:21, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
ça va t'es content ? T'as eu ton quota d'images supprimées ? Abruti, va ! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Guil2027 (talk • contribs) 2012-02-28T20:33:03 (UTC)
De quelles images parles-tu ? Il faut respecter le droit d'auteur et je propose la suppression d'une image si l'image est illégale. Par exemple, Commons n'accepte pas d'images des bâtiments français et belges si l’architecte est toujours en vie ou mort après 1941. --Stefan4 (talk) 21:09, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
Actually, that is our own software on these pictures. It is allowed to take screenshots and post them in our licence.
I ask you. Please go to https://nclab.com/. Please open Terms of Use on the very bottom of the page, there is the following Image Policy: "Anyone can take screenshots from the front page slider as well as from inside of NCLab and all its graphical applications, and use them in any way, as long as the source (NCLab) is mentioned."
Stefan, please, confirm, that there's no problem with licence, so I can delete the tags of pictures. OK? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jakubflaska (talk • contribs) 2012-02-11 18:48:47 (UTC)
I think that this already has been solved in the deletion request. Next time you post something to my talk page, please consider posting it at the bottom of the page instead of posting it at the top. Since this message had been posted at the top of the page, I didn't notice it until today. --Stefan4 (talk) 15:58, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
Not a frequent user so I'm not sure if I'm supposed to discuss this here or on that page.
Anyway it looks like the reason for their nomination is because Irish money is copyrighted, seen here: Commons:Currency#Ireland
If that's the law and that prevents images of Irish coins being reproduced, then that's the law. Don't know what else there is to be discussed. QC2 (talk) 15:31, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
Asakura Fumio died in 1964. If it was a normal work, the copyright to the statue expires in Japan in 2015.
According to this page, the statue was made in 1936, but then it was reconstructed in 1952. If the statue was a work for hire, the copyright expired 50 years after construction. It is not clear if the 1952 reconstruction added any copyrightable aspects to the statue, so it is not clear if the copyright would expire 50 years after 1936 or 50 years after 1952.
There is also the US copyright which expires 95 years after "publication". If the Japanese copyright expired in 1987 (50 years after 1936), the statue is presumably {{PD-1996}}. If the Japanese copyright expired in 2003 (50 years after 1952) or will expire in 2015 (50 years after 1964), the statue would be copyrighted in the United States under the URAA.
Bonjour ! J'ai supprimé toutes les photos de la liste, mais je n'avais pas vu que le titre mentionnait une photo différente. C'est rectifié, merci de l'avoir signalé. Jastrow (Λέγετε) 19:10, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
I believe that the original uploader actually created these images, since they're all elections with Democrats taking almost 100% of the vote for the gubernatorial elections in South Carolina. ~FeedintmParley18:22, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
The images you refer to are not derivations, there are various objects in the photos for those after 1923. Those of Porfirio Diaz and Francisco I Madero are pre 1923 and public domain.AlejandroLinaresGarcia (talk) 02:35, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
Publication before 1923 only means that the copyright has expired in the United States but says nothing about the copyright status in Mexico. Commons requires files originating from Mexico to be out of copyright in both the United States and Mexico. --Stefan4 (talk) 02:43, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
No, US law is the dominant one here as the Foundation and the servers are in the United States. See all the images in commons for José Guadalupe PosadaAlejandroLinaresGarcia (talk) 02:54, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
As for File:DiazFoxMODO36.JPG, it is not derivative as there are two newspapers in the photograph. Derivative applies when there is a copy of a single object.AlejandroLinaresGarcia (talk) 02:56, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
Hi, i hope that you will find it a positive thing to receive this barn star. The reason for giving it to you is two-fold. Firstly, it's a way to say thanks a lot for making this project a better place not only to find the information, but also safer from attempted harassment (and i have come to see just how important that last part is). But, secondly, with it i am wishing you a lot of strength, because i doubt that the discussion that is almost over is the end of it; keep in mind that the whole thing has began when i have voted Keep on a deletion request that some admin wanted to end in the delete consensus; and since you have voiced your opinion against this group of people, they won't really let it go (to quote admin Geni "this isn't over"). VolodyA! V Anarhist Beta_M (converse) 15:35, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
Ah, thanks. I hope it all ends well, but I'm afraid that there may be long and time-consuming discussions awaiting. --Stefan4 (talk) 18:40, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
To tell you the truth, i'm not really interested in discussions any longer. I'm not convinced that those people are ready to listen, and i'm not 13 any longer, arguing for the sake of it no longer interests me. I am considering making a public statement, however. VolodyA! V Anarhist Beta_M (converse) 19:48, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
Commons:WikiProject Public Domain
Hi, I'd like to bring to your attention Commons:WikiProject Public Domain. COM:WPPD aims to support the Commons community's efforts to organise Commons' public domain materials, and to ensure that these materials meet Commons licensing policy. Please consider contributing to developing the project. Rd232 (talk) 06:45, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
I might have misunderstood something. I have always heard of various copyright limitations concerning the use of Mozilla logos, but the links you provided suggests that all logos since Firefox 3.5 would be fine. It seems that Iceweasel only uses a different name and logo because of trademark issues – I thought that there were also copyrights involved. English Wikipedia has a Thunderbird logo which is claimed to be unfree, but the Firefox article contains a Firefox logo which is claimed to be free. This situation is a bit confusing. There's the issue that it says that licensing policy changed with Firefox 3.5 and I suppose I simply never heard of the changes until today. --Stefan4 (talk) 23:46, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
Fine. Trademark ruling prohibits altering the logo and limits usage but this is a non-copyright restriction. I personally don't know how to behave here. -- RE rillkequestions?16:39, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
Trademark restrictions are usually not an issue here, but if you are not allowed to alter the logo, it sounds like a variant of a CC-ND licence, which is not free enough. Maybe it would be better to ask at COM:VPC or put them all in a deletion request for discussion. I am certainly not sure what to do here.
I think that some of the logos which I tagged as {{Copyvio}} were deleted yesterday. Were they later restored? If not, it might be a good idea to try to locate them in the deletion log in case they should be restored. --Stefan4 (talk) 17:50, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
Yes, I think COM:VPC would be a good place. Concerning the deleted ones, one just have to scan through your deleted contribs which is easy because you're using edit summaries. -- RE rillkequestions?18:26, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
The image is, as clearly stated, a screenshot of a GPL'd program. As such, usage is free. Again, this is clearly stated in the description. Please remove your tag and deletion threat. Throwaway85 (talk) 05:10, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
It had no licence template, so the minor footnote about GPL wasn't easily noticed. All files should have a licence template. --Stefan4 (talk) 13:15, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
For those of us who don't live on commons or know its rules, but who nonetheless like to fix the occasional wiki article we run across, the requirement to include a template of which we have no knowledge or face deletion of a file we spent no mean amount of effort uploading while attempting to comply with the rules, seems a bit silly. Throwaway85 (talk) 00:02, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
I had the copyright holder email the license template as required to the email address specified several days ago. The tag re: license info missing on "File:MythBusters Stars Adam Savage and Kari Byron at Dublin High School Engineering Academy Open House.jpg" can be removed. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.157.178.130 (talk • contribs) 2012-03-15T20:20:08 (UTC)
When sending something there, you should mark the file with {{subst:OP}} so that people know that an e-mail has been sent and so that people won't risk deleting it before processing the e-mail. I've added {{subst:OP}} to this file now. --Stefan4 (talk) 20:35, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
Answer
In response to [1]: What do you think could be done? There is simply no way to interact with the WMF. They have ears but play deaf every time such a matter arrives, while showing of their muscles. --／人◕ ‿‿ ◕人＼苦情処理係23:10, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
PD-Afghanistan discussion
I have noticed you have been unhappy with my update of PD-Afghanistan entry on COM:L. Feel free to update it based on what you feel would be inline of current policies. Regards. -- とある白い猫ちぃ？ 23:11, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
Funny, the evidence of your harassment is clear with this edit: [3] is it not a building in Korea? You took the time to change the category but not nominate it for deletion? It's clearly the focus of the picture. Your behaviour is extremely transparent.--Crossmr (talk) 03:19, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
I was planning to create a mass nomination of Rotte Paekhwajŏm images because they look recent but couldn't find any year of construction. The company was founded in 1979 but I couldn't find out whether it was using existing buildings or building new ones. Mass nominations are easier to make if they are all in the same category and besides it makes it easier to look into the matter later. Train stations and sports venues are easier: they need a special design, so it can always be assumed that they were constructed right before the opening. --Stefan4 (talk) 03:43, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
Did you think about adminship? You do huge amount of admin-related work, and the admin tools should be very helpful for you. --Trycatch (talk) 07:42, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
File:110419 Carlotta.Grisi 002.jpg
Bonjour Stefan4,
Le problème avec cette image subsiste; lorsque je clique dessus afin de l'agrandir, elle se met à l'horizontale. Soit vous arriver à corriger ce défaut, soit je télécharge à nouveau cette image après l'avoir retravaillée sur Picasa 3. dans l'attente de votre réponse, mes salutations endimanchées, --Schnäggli (talk) 12:07, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
I was noticing your deletion request for images of the statue of Lenin in Fremont. A very interesting copyright question! I would suggest either spelling out freedom of panorama on first usage or linking to it, or both, for the benefit of newcomers. Would you mind if I made that change to your posting? 159.140.254.1014:30, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
Bonjour ! J'ai donné un avis sur Commons:Deletion requests/File:Vase-jobvilla.png, et j'ai apporté un commentaire à l'avis de Bildoj, mais comme c'est la première fois que je fais cela sur commons, merci de me dire si j'ai fait quelque chose de travers.
Désolée, l'image à laquelle je pensais n'est pas la même (le copyvio ne concerne là que la légende), mais Totodu74 a donné la bonne source de l'image et le copyvio est confirmé par le conservateur du Musée. - Cymbella (talk) 14:02, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
Sorry, I forgot to comment this. Why do you want the photo removed? It says that the image has passed a Flickr review which is typically considered enough to keep the image even if the Flickr licence has changed or if the image has been deleted from Flickr. --Stefan4 (talk) 22:40, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
Hei Stefan4, since I've been threatened with blocking to answer you on COM:AN, I have to do it on your talk page. My answer has been removed, the discussion on AN has been closed by the admin who threatened before that blocking users for discussing things on AN, and nothing has been clarified by now. You didn’t understand me right, but I can’t clarify this on the page you asked me, and the conclusion there means, that the discussion has been for nothing, and nothing has been understood. I think that means that in future any user at any time can be checked. Perhaps I’m getting checked right now, who knows? It’s all very sad to see things happen here in this way. Kind regards --Geitostdiskusjon14:52, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
Personally, I'm not too concerned about the checkuser issue, maybe because I prefer cow cheese to goat cheese. Sure, there could be issues with requests to lookup yourself, for example if you have written about controversial topics such as the en:4th of June Incident or en:Falun Gong and you've had your account hacked by the Chinese government which is trying to locate you. It was a bit questionable, yes, but not a big issue in my opinion. Niabot asked to have his IP addresses checked and got what he asked for, so no issue. Saibo didn't ask to have his IP addresses checked but still got them checked, and that's maybe an issue, although not a big one I'd say. However, I think that it was quite a stupid accusation that they would be the same person. I rarely look at German Wikipedia, so I don't know anything about their contributions over there, but I think that there are some quite big differences between their contributions here on Commons. --Stefan4 (talk) 22:07, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
Hello Stefan, previously I posted some info to the helpdesk and you were kind enough to follow through..could I ask your assistance with another file that I think may be tagged with incorrect release?
Photo comes from this set at israelproject.org the release is "royalty free" but what does that mean? It's noted that the photo is originally from Government Press Office photographer (Avi Ohayon) and their terms are here (see also)
The discussion mentions the restrictions placed on re-use and resolves that this is incompatible perhaps only good for fair-use on en ( commons is even more restricted, yes?).
The uploader here, this is his single action & I don't think it is clear to me that he was the copyright holder and had authority to release into public domain.
I would list this as a copyvio for deletion here myself, but the instructions confuse me & not sure it's possible w/out an account.
Could you do the necessary & list for discussion/deletion? regards 94.195.187.6909:03, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
This is from Allack. Please unflag the Chuck's Challenge images. I am the right's holder of them, so I have the right to upload them. Please feel free to email hello@niffler.co.uk to confirm this. www.Niffler.co.uk is the owner of Chuck's Challenge.
Because of the licence of this image - please take a look here. On the bottom part it is also written in English. You might fin a "Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License". Regards, High Contrast (talk) 23:58, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
Il me semble que l'auteur a bien donné son accord puisqu'il a téléchargé son fichier sur en et fr. A moins qu'il y ait un autre auteur qui m'aurait échappé mais je n'ai trouvé aucune autre image semblable sur google images. Mais Ylian saura peut-être mieux vous renseigner.
Merci pour ces précisions (je suis habitué à fr où il n'y a qu'un seul type de bandeau de licence GFDL, je serais plus vigilent). Cordialement, Bloody-libu (talk) 13:07, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
La imagen fue tomada de http://www.presidencia.gov.bo/ pero modificada. La posición oficial de la oficina de la presidencia de Bolivia es manifestada en la pagina de la vicepresidencia http://www.vicepresidencia.gob.bo/ la cual se rige mediante la Licencia "Creative Commons Attribution 2.5 License". No obstante yo reconozco que esta mal categorizada ya que aun no domino el uso de wikimedia commons. Pido se respete la imagen ya que solo se utiliza con fines didacticos, es frustrante ver que muchas imágenes que podrían simplemente categorizarse bien terminan borradas por individuos que no valoran el esfuerzo que tienen que hacer personas que viven en países donde el acceso a internet es bastante restringido para escribir un articulo y subir una imagen. User:Jolsuarez —Preceding comment was added at 2012-05-09T00:56:01 (UTC)
Dear Stefan,
I received a notification that you intend to delete the file I have uploaded. I kindly ask you not to do that and to please reconsider your decision. I have submitted the "undelete request" stating the reasons. It is the photo from my private collection and I uploaded it for public use. However, I would prefer that the higher resolution image appears in Wikipedia than the one which had been downloaded, at my request, initially. The reason is that the bio was reproduced in several publications by Wikipedia, and all photos, except the main one (the one which is resized) were reproduced, and regretfully, the main one, due to its tiny size, was not included in the publications. If in future this bio would be included in other publications, I would be delighted to have it included together with this principal photo, therefore I resized it and uploaded without lisense, for open use. Thank you for your understanding and hope for your kind cooperation in this matter.
Yours truly, ERASWK — Preceding unsigned comment added by ERASWK (talk • contribs) 2012-05-09T18:30:45 (UTC)
Could you please open a deletion request for the image instead? I din't upload such an image like [5], where the main subject would be the copyrighted work. This image is intended to show just an overall view of playing the board game, no matter if copyrighted artwork is discernible or not, and I think it could be de minimis. Lobo (howl?) 01:43, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
I'm not convinced that the first one counts as published according to British law. According to COM:L#Ordinary copyright, "If the work was not published before 30 August 1989 and the author died before 1969 then copyright expires at the end of 2039." Or for anonymous works: "If the work is unpublished and was first made available to the public before 1969 then copyright expires at the end of 2039." One of the other plaques isn't in a plaque category, so I didn't find it. Not sure why I missed the other one. --Stefan4 (talk) 22:39, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for that reply. But I don't understand why wikipedia is full of photos of packaging. A search in commons for Coca-Cola shows dozens of packaging shots. Same for Mars, or any brand. What is different about my photo compared to these?
Designs which are very simple are ineligible for copyright and are thus in the public domain. The words "very simple" are defined differently in different countries. In the United States, fonts are considered ineligible for copyright, so if American packaging only contains the name of the product in some font, uploading a photo of the packaging would be OK. Thus, painting a can red and writing the term "Coca-Cola" on the can wouldn't give you any copyright in the United States. In the United Kingdom, Austria and other countries, fonts have been ruled to be copyrightable, so photos of similar types of packaging might not be OK if the packaging comes from the United Kingdom or Austria. It seems that Mars was created in the United Kingdom but that it is now a product owned by an American company, so it is not entirely clear to me if the original country should be assumed to be the United Kingdom or the United States. I'd say that packaging such as File:Mars chocolate.jpg is very simple in the United States but not in the United Kingdom.
Coca-Cola has been produced since the 19th century, and packages from that time are in the public domain because of age. I don't know whether Coca-Cola has changed its packaging in a substantial way since then, but if not, taking a photo of Coca-Cola packaging should be fine. Mars seems to be from 1932 and unless there is some way to identify the person who created the packaging design used in 1932, the original packaging would be in the public domain in Europe as anonymous works enter the public domain 70 years after publication. Package designers usually don't sign their works, so it is probably impossible to identify the designer. Of course, I don't know whether the packaging has changed since the 1930s.
Some files on Commons might actually be copyright violations. Copyright violations are deleted when discovered, but there are probably lots of violations out there which haven't been discovered yet.
File:Scotty Brand potatoes.jpg has an illustration of a dog and a photo of potatoes. It says that the brand was established in 1948, so it would be plausible to assume that everything printed on the package was created in 1948 or later. Things like this are copyrighted for at least 70 years since publication in Europe. 1948 was less than 70 years ago, so even if everything was published during the first year, the packaging would still be copyrighted in Europe. More likely, the current design was created more recently as companies like to change their packaging designs once in a while. Thus, not OK. --Stefan4 (talk) 11:55, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for that reply. I'm not sure I agree on the Coca-Cola and Mars comments, as both of those companies would assert that their logo is a work of artistic effort, and certainly a whole load of the images are of new products that are only very recently introduced. But I guess that is beside the point, since two wrongs don't make a right.
My point is that to illustrate packaging, you kind of have to have a photo of it and I want to determine how to go about doing that... Can I write to the company concerned to get their approval to use the images? Or to use 'official' images off their website? Any suggestions gratefully received...
Bonjour, Sur la page Commons:Village pump/Copyright/Archive/2012/05#French money, j'ai posé quelques questions au sujet des billets et pièces de monnaie de la France. Je sais que tu t'es parfois exprimé sur des sujets reliés à ces questions, alors le présent message est juste pour t'informer de l'existence de cette discussion, si tu connais les réponses ou si tu souhaites faire des commentaires. -- Asclepias (talk) 22:33, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleting all at once
Is there anyway you can delete all the Armenian pictures at once? Every time you delete a single image, I just can't help, but think how sad it is that you have nothing better to do with your life then spend it away on wiki. Seriously, just delete everything and be done with it. --VartanM (talk) 06:04, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
User:Stefan4 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 user page, 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!
I also added a licence explaining the copyright status in the United States since Commons files both have to be free in the source country and in the United States. --Stefan4 (talk) 19:12, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for that. Now that we have added two extra licences (one initiated by yourself and one following a review by an administrator) can we now remove the deletion notice? Thanks in anticipation. Dormskirk (talk) 17:51, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
Just to say I agree - I realised I didn't seem to be helping the situation and will stay away from it I think :( Best --Herbytalk thyme14:26, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
You can help me to delete this copyright posible violation?
File:Zona metropolitana de guadalajara moderna..jpg 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.
Sorry for the late reply. I forgot to comment here. Only administrators can be delete files. However, I see that the file has been proposed for deletion, so I assume that it will be deleted at some point. We just need to wait until someone closes the deletion request. --Stefan4 (talk) 12:19, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
Hi, Stefan4. You have posted on my talk-page that the image in question does not provide sufficient copyright information. Well, I have tried to understand all the links for further readinding, but I failed. Let me put it as I understand it: I have uploaded an image which I have copied from an openly accessible IBM web site (IBM Redbooks). Now, as it is in the public domain, I understand it to be free. However, I may be wrong. Anyways, I think the same may apply to to two more images: it's "PureSystems1.jpg" and "PureSystems2.jpg". Much as I would like to use them in the articles, they were deleted, though. Now, I truly would be delighted if you could help with this little issue. Regards, Akolyth (talk) 08:40, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
If the images are, as you wrote, in the public domain, you have to provide evidence that the images are in the public domain. I find no such evidence on the web site you listed as the source, so it seems that the images aren't in the public domain. In that case, you have to identify the copyright holder and follow the instructions at COM:OTRS. Otherwise, the image will be deleted after a week. --Stefan4 (talk) 13:30, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
The Source section of the image description clearly states that I created this file; it was not "found on the Internet". I have removed the {{bsr}} tag and listed myself in the Author section. --Kbh3rd (talk) 15:45, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
It clearly says that this image was based on "public domain data produced by the U.S. Geologic Survey". Are you saying that you work for the U.S. Geologic Survey? --Stefan4 (talk) 15:48, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
"Based on" means that it is derivative work that is subject to its own copyright, which I automatically received when creating the image, and which I chose to release to the public domain. All works of the U.S. Government are in the public domain, including those of the United States Geological Survey. Kbh3rd (talk) 15:54, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
Yes, but if the source only is indicated as "United States Geological Survey", there is no way to confirm that the source really was made by the United States Geological Survey. --Stefan4 (talk) 16:00, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
That map has been used on the English Wikipedia for eight years without any problem, and I no longer have the precise sources at hand. However, anyone with the least knowledge of USGS products would immediately and without question recognize the sources as one the 7.5" quadrangle map series shaded with USGS DEM elevation data. Knowing the subject, the specific map used could be found.
I have never been to the United States and don't know what US government maps usually look like. However, I don't think that this is extremely important. That's why I used {{Bsr}} instead of {{subst:dw-nsd}}. --Stefan4 (talk) 20:55, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
Wall painting at Cameley St James.jpg & roatation
Hi, Can I ask for some help. I took a photo of a wall painting at a local church & uploaded it as: File:Wall painting at Cameley St James.jpg. On 19 Decemebr 2011 you made a change with the edit summary "Correcting image orientation: Requesting Rotatebot to reset EXIF Orientation as the image is physically in correct orientation." & then Rotatebot changed the image to the one now shown. Having done more reading & editing the article about the church on wikipedia it becomes clear that this is an early representation of the the three lions of the Royal Arms of England (possibly one of the oldest surviving) & the orientation should be as I originally had it. I have no idea how Rotatebot works, so could you do whatever is needed to change it back again?Rodw (talk) 19:30, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
Sorry about that. Due to changes in software, a lot of images ended up with a wrong orientation at the end of last year, and so the images had to be corrected. I helped with telling Rotatebot which images to fix, but it seems that this image was "fixed" by mistake. I have reverted this rotation. --Stefan4 (talk) 19:57, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
Fichiers Dalayrac. Appartenir à la BNF (sans mention ?) est-ce équivalent à "libre de droit" ?
Bonjour, et merci d'avoir pris la peine de prendre en considération les fichiers : File:Nicolas Dalayrac par Gauthier..jpg
Nicolas Dalayrac par Gauthier
, et File:Nicolas Dalayrac par Quenedey..jpg
Nicolas Dalayrac par Quenedey
Actuellement ils ne sont pas inclus dans l'article car je ne maitrise absolument pas la notion si importante de droit d'auteur. Ces deux fichiers proviennent de la bibliothèque nationale de France “en ligne”. Est-ce une condition suffisante pour que ces documents soient considérés comme libres de droit ? Et avec quelle licence ? Par ailleurs existe-t-il une définition minimum nécessaire pour que l'image figure sur Wikipedia ? Questions posées à la communauté mais sans réponse. Avec tous mes remerciements. Cordialement. 6PO (étonné de voir figurer en signatutre une adresse IP) --86.211.57.17015:01, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
Bonjour ! Il faut indiquer pourquoi les images sont libres en France et aux États-Unis. Toutes les images publiées avant 1923 sont libres aux États-Unis. Si le dessinateur est mort avant 1942, les images sont libres en France aussi. J'ai cherché sur Google et il paraît que les images furent publiées en 1801. Donc, il paraît que les images doivent êtres libres dans toute la monde et qu'il ne reste plus de droit d'auteur. J'ai corrigé la licence. --Stefan4 (talk) 19:53, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
Bonjour, et merci pour votre aide si précieuse. Elle incite à essayer de comprendre ce qu'est une licence pour média. Par ailleurs la recherche de plus haute définition est possible, mais je n'ai pas saisi comment. Cordialement. --Fguinard 16:53, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
I can not understand why you make claim about my photo. I took these photo really. I live in Shinjuku now and it is eazy for me to take photo in Shinjuku erea. I was born near Shimashimadani, Bandoko, Nyakutakuji site. I go this erea frequently-every month this spring and summer. Also, it is eazy for me to take photo in Matsumoto erea of Japan.
My old age family（more than 130 years ago）was a stuff of Nyakutakuji temple, the temple was broken in 1871 in tide of Japanese histry "Meiji-ishin". So, my family kept the woodcut about Nyakutakuji temple. The woodcut was made in 1750-1840. I saw the woodcut in my childhood every year. Now, I am 64 years old.
I am a Japanese, live in Japanese language, do not use English usually. It is difficult to understand what you write when your English is difficult. I was sad when I saw this page.
I afraid that I can find this page or not.
I cannot see what is wrong with the license of this file. It was under this license originally, at the English Wikipedia, by its only author, so can you explain what the problem is? --Deinocheirus (talk) 22:39, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
Finding photos online
What if I found these photos on Google images or various websites and I don't know where the license is... can I use these photos? What should I type into the body of the article? Thank you so much for helping, it's my first go at this! Srdemuro (talk) 22:28, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
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!
File:InnoutOrem.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!
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!
If you created this ⧼nstab-⧽ ⧼pageinfo-talkpage⧽, 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!
The original upload was somehow detected as a zip archive. So I tried a lossless rotation by 360° with the rotatebot to fix the mime type. So the rotation was just arbitrary. Also comparing to other images from this series, I think the original orientation was just fine. --McZusatz (talk) 07:59, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
Sorry if I did something wrong. I must say that it is a bit difficult to see what's up and what's down. Feel free to revert if you believe that you are correct. --Stefan4 (talk) 21:48, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
You need to send your permission to OTRS. See instructions at COM:OTRS. Also note that a permission which only applies to Wikipedia is insufficient. Anyone must be allowed to do almost anything with the photo. --Stefan4 (talk) 21:43, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
File:Ganjnameh.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!
See also: [[::en:User talk:Stefan2#Deletion of several files|
en:User talk:Stefan2#Deletion of several files]].
Hum, I can't talk to you from EN Wiki... So, yeah, I agree with you... Those pics what you proposed for deletion are really unnecessary. but the front covers are all over the wiki, and those what I uploaded need to stay in the sever. Tankyou -User:SrGangsta (talk)
I would have preferred if you had added fair use rationales yourself since it would have saved me some time, but I see that you have been blocked on English Wikipedia, so you can't edit anything there right now. I have checked whether the images are front covers used in an infobox, and added a fair use rationale to the first image in each infobox. --Stefan4 (talk) 23:00, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
deletion of File:Brandywine1.jpg
i took this file from the english wikipedia when i was improving an article on the french wikipedia. it's my mistake: i didn't checked the author...
i looked on google and found links to copies of this image:
only the last one mentions Doctor Whom as author, but it is obviously taken from wikipedia because the original upload was made in 2005.
i can't give any author to this image because i just took it from english wikipedia, i've seen that you contacted doctor whom on his talk page, he's the only one that can give information about author. in fact i don't really mind if this image is removed or not, i just added it in a gallery.
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!
The information on that page is not enough. You claim that the image is licensed as {{Cc-zero}}, but prove no evidence of this.
This page tells that the logo is "open source". "Open source" normally means that the logo is available under some free software licence ({{GPL}}, {{LGPL}}, {{MIT}} or something else). One requirement of free software licences is typically that you have to provide the name of the licence (and often a copy of the licence). Failing to do this is typically a copyright violation. You have specified {{Cc-zero}} which is not a software licence and thus unlikely to be correct. Anyway, if you do add a software licence, you need to find a source which confirms that you have listed the correct licence.
The words "free to be used by everyone" are not specific enough. Are you only allowed to use an unmodified version of the image, or are you also allowed to modify the image? A free software licence implies the latter, but the notice is too inexact for anyone to identify the correct terms. --Stefan4 (talk) 23:46, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
OK, I got this, though I don't understand why "free for everyone to use" isn't enough to use it free for everyone indeed.... For me "free" is "free" and "free" doesn't imply any limitation. But now the file has been deleted, so a correction isn't possible anyway. Greetings --111Alleskönner (talk) 00:44, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
hi Stefan - you just copypaste something on my talkpage but do not explain WHY you think their are problems with the file lisence status of the file from LOC. I'd be pleased if you could explain just a little bit more what's wrong... --katpatuka (talk) 05:28, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
ステちゃんさん, Commons:Deletion requests/File:MustfaFehmi.jpgに関して、もう少し明確に説明していただけないでしょうか？土耳古では、歴史的な写真のうちクレジットされていたのは極稀で、原作者が不明または不詳というのが多いです。そうした場合、著作権法では、最初に発行した者とか最初に配布した者とかが著作権者のごとく振舞えます。新聞社とか通信社とか政府機関、つまり個人ではなく法人がこれに該当することが多いです。ただし、著作権が切れる前に著作権者たることを主張したケースも稀なので、大抵は、そのまま著作権保護期間が満了してパブリック・ドメインになっていた、という具合です。ぶっちゃけ、en:Rule of the shorter termでいけばいいかと思っていたので、ちょっと寝耳に水的な感じです。いずれにしても、本件は、当該ファイルだけでなく他の多くの同様のファイルにも影響する可能性があるので、米国法と土耳古共和国法の関係についてのご説明、よろしくおねがいします。またね。
I noticed that you listed File:Andrew_Kooman.jpg for deletion, stating that there is no evidence of permission. I was given permission personally from the originator of the image, but I do not have a website url or an e-mail. What can I do?
I see now that you listed all of the She Has a Name images I uploaded for deletion. Would you be willing to give me enough time to receive such an e-mail from the images' originator? I just received your warnings today as I am an editor on Wikipedia and rarely visit the Commons. I would be greatly appreciative if you would be understanding in this matter. I should be able to receive the required e-mail within a week.
I will transfer Cretanforever's images to commons with some tools which you wrote my talk page. Thank you for helping. Best regards.--Reality14:13, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
Don't worry. I am an administrator in Turkish Wikipedia and I checkhed over 10.000 file and I deleted approximately 500-1000 file because of copyright violation. I think I have a wide information about copyright issue. Best regards.--Reality14:27, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
Help with photo deletion, please
Please help a new user who wishes to donate/upload a photo that he has inherited from his father. He has responded with permission, but had no time to receive help before his photo was deleted: File:First Scanning Electron Microscope with high resolution from Manfred von Ardenne 1937.jpg.
It would be greatly appreciated if you can email him on the steps he must take to have his photo accepted. He is not an expert wiki editor. Thank you very much. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 27.32.236.148 (talk • contribs) 2012-09-07T11:12:26 (UTC)
The file was deleted because of no evidence of permission. This probably means that the work has been published somewhere else before it was uploaded to Commons. In that case, you need to ask the copyright holder to send permission to OTRS. See COM:OTRS for instructions. The copyright holder to a photo is normally the photographer. --Stefan4 (talk) 12:52, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
Hello! Thank you very much for the advice. The user/owner of the above photo has now given permission at http://med.ardenne.de/?cat=90&lang=en. Would you be able please to undelete the above photo? If not, please advise the steps this user has to take in order to undelete it. When he tried to re-upload it, even with a different filename, it was rejected.--27.32.236.14806:49, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
There is one problem with the statement on that page. It says that "You are free to share, to copy, distribute and transmit the Photo." However, it seems that you are not free to modify the photo. Commons requires photos to be available under licences which allow you to modify the photos. Besides, only administrators can undelete files, so you will have to contact an administrator for undeletion if you manage to obtain a sufficient licence. --Stefan4 (talk) 18:01, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
What exactly do you want to be reviewed? I uploaded this image from Maidan website, available under GFDL (see their home page: (Copyleft) maidan.org.ua, 2001-2011, distributed according GNU copyleft license for documentation). I took this photo from Our Ukraine party congress photoset, together with File:Ivan Plyushch.jpg or File:Ivan Plyushch.jpg. I may have a full image, but it was uploaded from my old computer, so it will take time to find (I cropped nothing but black space, original image was like 800*600). The website owner changed its design in 2011, and all the galleries where moved somewhere else. Unfortunately, there is no way to track it as all galleries were never archived or cached because of robots.txt. So if you wanted to check the license, you have the license on the main page, if you wanted to check why its low-res, you have the explanation, but if you wanted to check the link, I'm afraid there is no way to fix it — NickK (talk) 01:23, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
Affiche rouge
Bonjour, je crois que le détenteur des droits de l’Affiche rouge est le Haut commandement de armée d'occupation nazie à Paris du chancelier du Reich Adolf Hitler et l’antenne parisienne de la Gestapo durant la Seconde Guerre mondiale. J’ignore s’il y a des ayant droit survivants. Je ne sais hélas à qui demander l’autorisation concernant son utilisation. Peut-être auprès de l’ambassade d’Allemagne à Paris. Bien à vous ! --Claude Truong-Ngoc (talk) 13:24, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
Bonjour. Merci pour cet avertissement. Au départ, j'ai suivi la "recommandation" se trouvant sur en.wikipedia de transférer sur commons. Je viens d'envoyer un email à "Friends University / Edmund Stanley Library", qui a publié cette image, pour demander de préciser le copyright.--MHM (talk) 19:27, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
Here is a DR I created regarding Japanese TOO; given your fluency in the language, I thought you might have something to add (I sure as heck can't read the text): Commons:Deletion requests/File:Comic Party logo.png. 15:34, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
Hi! I come to know from User:Magog the Ogre that you work on moving free files from en wiki to Commons. While i was also doing so, i have come across many such file in Category:Copy to Wikimedia Commons that are free but are not used on en wiki itself. What do we do about these files? Do we still move them? Also the category is highly populated. It has like 138000+ file. In case we aren't moving a certain file, do we tag it with something? So it gets removed from this category and other users don't come across it again? §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 04:32, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
If the images are in scope for Commons, there is no reason not to copy them to Commons. If you find a file which is unused and doesn't appear to be useful, take it to en:WP:FFD for deletion. If you wish to focus on files which are in use on English Wikipedia, there is en:Category:Move to Commons Priority Candidates. If I remember correctly, a "priority candidate" is a file which is in use in certain namespaces. User:Sven Manguard's bot adds/removes files from that category once in a while based on changed file usage. --Stefan4 (talk) 12:05, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
It is the uploader's job to be specific or at least link the source file. In this case, however, it was used at more than 100 pages, so I believe there is a positive RIOT doing some investigation instead of trying to educate the uploader. -- Rillke(q?)15:32, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
Serierna publicerades i amerikanska dagstidningar innan de publicerades i Australien. De behöver en amerikansk licens. Dessutom står det att tecknaren och manusförfattaren båda måste ha dött före 1955 om serierna inte är anonyma. Serierna verkar ha gjorts av Ray Moore och Lee Falk, som båda dog långt efter 1955. --Stefan4 (talk) 19:57, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
Julie Stimmel
Hello,
The image you are talking about is good. I need your help to make this right, please respond ASAP as I am new here and would like to contribute but so far all you do is take my work down. Please consider next time starting a topic on my Talk Page before editing my work. This is common courtesy and can be read about in the common courtesy section for new users, like myself. Although you could use a refresher I think, Stefan4). You see Stefan4, the article this picture belongs on isn't able to be complete without this picture, so if you could please help me figure out how to get it on there because I took the picture i WOULD appreciate that because right now you are just deleting things and thats doesn't help anyone. Together we can do this!
Hi again Stefan4, pleas respond ASAP so we can sort this out. The site it is on currently isn't mine, also the original work is on another website. I'm afraid it will not go through or something please Stefan4, you're my only hope. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.211.178.28 (talk • contribs) 2012-10-16T23:02:54 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.211.171.70 (talk • contribs) 2012-10-16T23:16:19 (UTC)
Two of the images are listed as "own work" and sourced to a blog, but they have OTRS permission. I guess that these are fine due to the OTRS template. The two other images are sourced to Flickr. They are listed as CC-BY-SA on Commons but as CC-BY-NC-SA on Flickr. I tagged both as "no permission" as there is no evidence that the Flickr user has agreed to drop the NC part of the licence. --Stefan4 (talk) 20:46, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
Actually this photo was taken by me on a function with him,when i uploaded or posted somewhere shared and uploaded in other site since he is one of the most popular youth politician in kerala.So i humbly request you that please allow my genuine picture here.
I'm not sure if this affects anything. In the UK and many former British colonies, the copyright term changes from life+70 years to publication+50 years, but I'm not sure if this is the case in Australia. In some countries, setting up a sign means "publishing" the sign, and in other countries it doesn't mean "publishing" the sign. I don't know how Australia defines publication; the sign may be "unpublished". Sorry for the late reply: I've been a bit busy lately. --Stefan4 (talk) 13:29, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
So if you are not sure, why are you deleting it? We are trying to show a particular rumour to our history by what is on that sign. It is integral to our story. If you are not sure, then please leave it- or as the case is now- undelete. Thanks. Benwebboz (talk) 21:54, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
The sign is clearly copyrighted. The only thing which could maybe be affected is the copyright term. Anyway, it is the uploader's responsibility to show that an image is free to use. See COM:EVIDENCE. --Stefan4 (talk) 16:59, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
Hello,
Van Cleve Fine Art represents the artist Hugo Crosthwaite, whose image I tried to upload onto Wikimedia Commons in order to add to the Wikipedia page we are currently building for him. The image is currently used as a profile picture on the artist's Facebook page, which is managed by us. The artist has given us sole permission to upload this file. I was curious what has to be done in order to get the image approved. I am currently writing Commons:OTRS, and need the URL of the image as located on Wikimedia Commons, but it has since been deleted. If you could please tell me how to proceed, I'd really appreciate it.
Best Regards,
Angela Yang
Van Cleve Fine Art
I wasn't aware of the {{PD-South-Africa-exempt}} template when I nominated your images for deletion. It is possible that the images are covered by that template. You could maybe ask for help at COM:VPC or somewhere. I'm sorry if I made a mistake when I nominated your images for deletion, but it is also the uploader's responsibility to find the correct copyright tag. I'm sorry for the late answer; I've been busy with other things for a few days, and will remain busy for some time. --Stefan4 (talk) 13:35, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
Delete everything, thank you
See the notice on my talk? Read it and stop posting your obnoxious deletion tags. Unlike you, I actually do work on finding suitable images for Wikipedia articles. Not sit back and tag images at random and then run for adminship. But we all know you deletionists eventually win anyway right? So why bother. Just delete it already.--Obsidi♠nSoul00:36, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
Deletion notices are posted by scripts such as MediaWiki:Gadget-AjaxQuickDelete.js and MediaWiki:VisualFileChange.js. These scripts do not read the notice on your talk page and do not give users the option not to notify uploaders. It would be too much trouble to create deletion requests manually instead. If you don't want notifications, you should ask the script designer (possibly User:Rillke) to create a notification opt-out functionality. --Stefan4 (talk) 13:17, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
Det ser ud til at man ikke kan rette diskussionssider på wts mere og shared synes at være ret død. Så hvor diskuterer man henne nu? Jeg tænker hvor mange ser fx denne diskussion? --MGA73 (talk) 20:40, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
Jag ska titta på kategorin. En annan sak: om du flyttar filer från Shared ska du akta dig för filer som laddats upp av User:ImportBot. Dessa filer har kopierats från Wikitravel Shared och finns oftast både på Wikivoyage Shared och Wts. Det är bättre att kopiera dessa filer från Wts istället eftersom du då får en bättre {{Original upload log}}. Dessutom ska du inte kopiera samma fil mer än en gång. --Stefan4 (talk) 21:05, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
Det er samme script so upload log burde blive ens uanset om jeg kopierer fra wts eller shared. Jeg tænkte på at flytte de fleste filer fra shared (dvs. de brugere med mange "own work" uploads) og så lade min bot markere filer på wts med "NowCommons" og så kopiere resten derfra. --MGA73 (talk) 21:16, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
Diskussionssida: [8]. Jag har tittat på vissa filer och alla verkar vara foton tagna av Bbb, men det var för många filer för att titta på alla. Jag har tittat på filnamn och tumnaglar och de ser säkra ut, så de kan nog flyttas till Commons. --Stefan4 (talk) 21:34, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
Tak for hjælpen!
Ja det er rigtigt at importbot giver problemer. Derfor vil jeg også helst starte med at flytte de rigtige filer direkte fra kilden og så gemme de besværlige til sidst.
Ja vi har nok nogle bedre symboler et sted. Men så længe det ikke er copyvios og "kun" er under 10 filer så lever jeg fint med at der bliver kopieret lidt overflødige filer :-)
Personligt tror jeg at vi på et tidspunkt kan få problemer med FOP og statuer men det er trods alt ret få filer ud af de 2.000+ filer. --MGA73 (talk) 21:43, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
Men jeg tænker at "Fair use bot" kan kopiere billederne til de wikier hvor man bruger de pågældende filer. Så hvis det bliver aktuelt så skulle det ikke blive det store arbejde. --MGA73 (talk) 21:53, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
Som du har bemærket er der flere brugere, der kopierer filer til Commons uden en original uploadlog. Jeg tænkte derfor på om det var bedre blot at kopiere alle filer med {{Move}} til Commons og så tjekke og rydde op der?
Det vil givet give et par hundrede copyvios men til gengæld vil vi få fixet næsten alle røde links hurtigt og vi vil minimere antallet af filer uden original upload log. --MGA73 (talk) 22:26, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
Det kanske skulle vara bättre. Jag är bekymrad över antalet filer som laddas upp utan {{Original upload log}}; det kommer att ta jättelång tid att rätta till dem. Det skulle säkert gå mycket snabbare att helt enkelt radera alla filerna och sedan föra över filerna på nytt. --Stefan4 (talk) 22:31, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
Jag har för övrigt ett annat problem... Min robot säger "Pausing 300 seconds due to database server lag" hela tiden och vägrar göra några ändringar. Av den anledningen har jag inte kunnat uppdatera några filnamn på hela kvällen, vilket är väldigt irriterande. Din robot verkar dock fungera som vanligt, åtminstone på Commons. Vet du vad det kan bero på? --Stefan4 (talk) 22:51, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
Jeg har også haft store problemer. Har nu taget min konto på toolserver i brug og det giver en noget bedre forbindelse ser det ud til. --MGA73 (talk) 22:56, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
Ja lad os bare prøve... Har lige sat botten til at flytte filer fra WTS - wil lige se om det går godt før jeg kaster mig over filer fra en masse forskellige uploadere på en gang.
Har i øvrigt fået en liste fra shared og ifølge den er der 3.321 filer uploadet af Gobbler og 1.115 af Airin. Det ser dog også ud til at Bgabel, Unger, Bbb og DerFussi har uploaded mange flere filer end der er i deres kategorier. Måske filer fra fx Flickr. Det værste er dog 2.278 filer uploaded af ImportBot. --MGA73 (talk) 17:32, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
ImportBot-filerna finns oftast även på Wts fast med korrekt historik på Wts. Dessa bör importeras från Wts istället. --Stefan4 (talk) 18:13, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
Hej! Du har på et tidspunkt fundet en masse filer, der kom fra Wikipedia eller Commons. Jeg har lavet en kategori her med filer uploaded af Gobbler som muligvis kommer fra Wikipedia eller Commons. Hvorfor kom de ikke ud på dine lister? --MGA73 (talk) 07:53, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
Jag sökte bara efter filer på Wts. Det är förmodligen nödvändigt att även söka efter filer på Shared och olika språkversioner, men det tänkte jag inte på. --Stefan4 (talk) 10:44, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
I downloaded and uploaded the photos from WikiTravel. The license posted on its page was CC-BY-SA 3.0. Since it was my original source, I had no reason to suspect that the uploader in Wikitravel uploaded it under a different license term from their source. So you found out that the everyphoto source was CC-BY... and the point is? I didn't exactly download this from everyphoto did I? The source I gave was WikiTravel, and the license there, as far as I know was CC-BY-SA 3.0.
You have yet to prove that any of the pictures I've uploaded were unfree. The only thing you've successfully done is claim that they aren't due to the original source of WikiTravel apparently having expired. And apparently that's enough to assume that WikiTravel thus lied about it, and then blaming me as if I had somehow anything to do with them.
Commons:AGF. If you found something I missed in the pictures I uploaded, don't assume that I did it because I had this nefarious scheme of adding copyrighted images. Of the thousands of pictures I've contributed here, from those free ones painstakingly gathered from the internet, to the PD-Old ones I cut out and cleaned from 19th century journals, to the 3d renders and other illustrations I've created myself, I would have thought that by now I would deserve to be treated with at least the respect of not being templated like a common vandal. --Obsidi♠nSoul22:07, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
Um, but if you copy a file from a different website, such as Wikitravel or Wikipedia, you first need to check that the licence on the other website is correct. A lot of files on other websites list a wrong licence. --Stefan4 (talk) 14:42, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
As far as I know, it's not our responsibility to trace a photo right back to where it was originally from. See COMMONS:SOURCE, and note that I complied with all of the requirements there by giving the site where I got it from (WikiTravel) along with the licensing information there. There is nothing in the rules that requires me to go beyond that. If it was posted as a freely license file in another site, unless there is reason to assume that that site is notorious for copyright infringement, you don't go hunting down the original owner of the file just so you can truly find out if it was free or not. That's paranoia, and in almost all cases, you're just wasting your time.
You, yourself, haven't found any actual proof that any of the files I got from there are unfree. You only succeeded in getting two files deleted because you couldn't anymore access the source files of my sources. Which is ridiculous in itself. Do you also go around deleting files on Commons because the pages they were originally from have expired? If that happens, virtually all the files present now would have to be deleted in a few years, as websites generally only last that long.
And why are you equating Wikipedia with WikiTravel? Wikipedia is under WMF, so we're obligated to check the licenses if we're moving files from there as it's under our responsibility. WikiTravel, despite having "Wiki" in its name, is a completely different site. I assume they already have their own personnel for checking their uploaded files, so it is not our responsibility.
You're free to check the source of the source of my sources ad inifinitum, if you're really that fanatical, but don't blame me for something another person in another site did. As I've mentioned earlier, I'm a volunteer like you. I do not do this for any personal reward. I have zero reasons to willingly violate our copyright rules. I resent being treated like a criminal and I resent being templated (wrongly I might add) like a noob. Stop it.
Um, but Wikitravel says that the image doesn't come from Wikitravel but from Everystockphoto. In this case, the source you should list is not Wikitravel but Everystockphoto. Also, if you copy an image from an external website, please also tag the page with {{Licensereview}} so that a licence reviewer verifies the licence. Otherwise, files are normally deleted if the original source goes offline because there's no longer a way to verify the licence. --Stefan4 (talk) 21:49, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
But I didn't get it from Everystockphoto, did I? I got it from WikiTravel. Why should I list a site I didn't even visit, nor the site I got the picture from? If the New York Times publishes a photo and then puts a CC-BY or whatever notice next to it, along with the name of the photographer, would you also refuse to believe NYT and hunt down the photographer so you can confirm that it is indeed CC-BY? Again, WikiTravel has given no indication that I should distrust it. Indeed the only mistake you found from them is a CC-BY getting uploaded by them as a CC-BY-SA. That's not even really a copyright violation as a CC-BY-SA complies with a CC-BY. And all of this shit over a photo that's quite easily replaceable, which I just snapped up because it was there and seemed to be a good addition to Commons. As I said earlier, delete it if you want to. Correct any errors if you have to. Anything else is just deliberately provoking me, and I'm fed up already as it is on Commons copyright paranoia. --Obsidi♠nSoul23:59, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
In this case, it's fairly easy to check Wikitravel's source (just click on the link to Everystockphoto), so I see no reason not to check that source. In other cases, checking the original source may be more difficult. For example, the source may be listed as a book which might not be easily accessible, and then we may have to trust a website claim, unless someone is able to locate the book to confirm. However, I see no reason not to mention the original source if it is known to us, even if it might not always be trivial to check that source. --Stefan4 (talk) 08:40, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
Obsidian, your outrage is unfounded. And further comments like this one are not appreciated. I know that copyright is sometimes really hard and especially when applying copyright of 2 or more country's laws like we do at Commons, it's getting crazy. Nevertheless you could stay polite.
As for the "templating", we unfortunately do not have always time to check each uploader's contributions. You work is appreciated; think about the templates like notifications; no one spoke about a vandal nor intends to block you. You can read and discard the messages (a polite reply [like this user] would of course be excellent) or gather arguments against a deletion request or fix a license so it is more permissive like the source indicates.
Why cc-by-sa instead of cc-by is not superior?
Though, you can incorporate a cc-by-work into a cc-by-sa-work, this would actually need a derivative work.
The uploader wishes to publish their works under cc-by.
A re-user has more freedom with a cc-by work when creating derivative works.
Why is the original source useful? Because it helps one
to find more similar photos
upload the photo in full resolution (One is encouraged to always upload the largest resolution if this makes sense)
to contact the photographer
when doing investigations.
If this is not properly reflected in at least one of our policy pages, we should include these considerations. What are your thoughts? Thanks for your contributions to Wikimedia Commons. I wish you a wonderful Yuletide. Kind regards -- Rillke(q?)16:30, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
Also, templating has another very useful feature: templates provide automatic translations into many languages. Some users only speak Russian and some users only speak Chinese. Sometimes, I don't know what languages a user speaks, and I might not speak the same languages. However, thanks to the automatic template translation, the user can still read the message. --Stefan4 (talk) 17:53, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
stefan2bot is changing images wrong - stop this pls
In the first case, the bot changed "Maubisse Pousada2.jpg" into "Maubisse pousada.jpg". According to this page and File:Maubisse pousada.jpg, any use of File:Maubisse_Pousada2.jpg is to be replaced by File:Maubisse pousada.jpg because the former name on the shared project corresponds to the latter name on Commons. This is exactly what my bot did. In the other case, the change was also correct: the NowCommons template tells that File:Pousada_de_Baucau.jpg should be replaced by File:Poussada de Baucau.jpg. The problem is that some people are apparently changing file links manually without checking whether there are conflicting files on the shared image project. These careless image replacements by other users need to stop: if people can't check whether there's a name conflict on the shared project, then they shouldn't replace file names since they will just introduce errors. --Stefan4 (talk) 09:09, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
I was only uploading this picture on behalf of one forumer who found commons too complicated. All permissions stuff should be handled by him and author and should already be sent to OTRS. Do you have access to it and can check? If you can see all my pictures related to Euro 2012, they got OTRS stamps (from other authors that "alsen strasse 67"). I had to push for them as often e-mail to OTRS was not handled by OTRS. If you don't find it in OTRS, pls feel free to delete, I have no energy to dig so long in the past. Kotasik (talk) 07:25, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
Sorry, I do not know how I did it. It wasn't my intention. What about checking OTRS? I believe the permission was sent +- few days after I uploaded the photo. Kotasik (talk) 11:14, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
Have you been reviewing /shared? Is it doing alright without the help of oldver? If not, I can try to cook something up. I think I'll have a day off this week (yes, really!). However, I only want to do it if it's really advantageous, i.e., there will be many images (probably 20 or more). Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 04:20, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
Sorry for the late reply. I've not done much work at Shared lately; I've been doing more work at WTS. I don't know how many files there are with multiple files in history at Shared. Maybe there are so few of them that it would be OK to upload them manually. --Stefan4 (talk) 17:47, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
I found a lot of files with multiple versions when reviewing this category. The old Mediawiki version has also caused trouble to MGA73 and me when we have tried to modify pages using our bots. For example, the website's api.php doesn't support action=edit. I don't know how much you would need to change to oldver.php to make it compatible. Some Pywikipedia functions work, some don't. Although you wrote that Peachy formally requires Mediawiki 1.15, I suspect that some parts of it might work anyway, although other parts of it probably don't work. --Stefan4 (talk) 12:24, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
Peachy is designed to fail on startup upon seeing MW < 1.15. I will have to hardcode wikivoyage-shared in such that it ignores the MW version, and possibly add in some code to figure out the parameters it normally gets from the API. It will be difficult, but I can try. However, I cannot promise it will be in the next few days, because I have work. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 23:35, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
Alright; I had an hour and a half tonight, and I've slapped something together. It has bugs in formatting, etc., but much like an old beat up car, you still end up where you want to be when you're done with it. It's working. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 03:58, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
I took a look at other uploads and made a correction on File File:Sehzade Camii.jpg. Are you thinking this is OK now? Then In I will correct the uploads I already made from Walter 57. Further I want to ask If they only the picture I uploaded from other WV users are affected from your request or I have even to change my own work? Elelicht (talk) 16:20, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
Yes, that's the way it should be. You should always include an original upload log, no matter who the original uploader is, since there could otherwise be problems with people claiming that images are copyright violations if the image was uploaded before it was uploaded to Commons. The instructions tell that people shouldn't attempt to move files manually but instead wait for the bot to do this since almost everyone seems to forget about the original upload log. --Stefan4 (talk) 16:29, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
Okay, Bad news for me. This will take a lot of time to correct my own files. A few pictures I have also uploaded on other Sites (like Wikitravel De). Have I also add this upload log?
See also Commons:Bots/Requests/Stefan2bot. These files will hopefully be fixed by a bot in the near future (so you probably don't have to do anything yet), but in some cases, the information might be lost if the files already have been deleted from Wikivoyage. Getting original upload logs from Wikitravel is harder since the Mediawiki API has been switched off. --Stefan4 (talk) 17:05, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
The bot made this edit to a file that I am the original author of and that I have provided the source on my web site. In this case an "original upload log" is not needed since I am the original author, and I would prefer not to include one. Is there a way to modify the bot so that if the uploader name on Commons is the same as the uploader name in the original upload log that your bot does not make any modification? Also: thanks for your help with the image migration, it's very much appreciated! -- Wrh2 (talk) 22:32, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
Similarly with this edit: [11]. The file is a public domain file from the National Park service, and I've linked to the original source. Is there some way to tag files as not needing the original upload log so your bot can ignore them? -- Wrh2 (talk) 22:34, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
Original upload logs are also needed if the one uploading it to Commons is the same as the one uploading it to Wikivoyage. Otherwise, a lot of files are likely going to be deleted by mistake. For example, a file was almost deleted by mistake at Commons:Deletion requests/File:PuenteVizcaya01.jpg because an uploader didn't provide an original upload log to his own uploads. It seems that I missed to add the 100 PD-USGov templates to the "ignore" list. --Stefan4 (talk) 22:39, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
Got it. I'll keep an eye on my own files as I would prefer not to have an "original upload log" when the "original" source is specified on the image as being my own web site, but it's understandable why images that aren't hosted elsewhere on the web would need this log. As long as your bot doesn't try to update images that it has already updated then I think everything will be OK with that approach. -- Wrh2 (talk) 22:49, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
Does the "when" matter? If the image states that "Ryan Holliday" is the author, my user page states that my name is "Ryan Holliday", and the image page links to a site that includes the image that is "Copyright Ryan Holliday", that should be more than sufficient to prove that I created the image. That said, the image pages such as [12] (corresponding to File:3253-pebble-rockhopper RJ.jpg) show the image with my copyright notice and the date the image was taken. -- Wrh2 (talk) 16:09, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
Update: I may have misunderstood. Is your point that I should link to a more specific location on my site for each image? If so I can update the images accordingly. -- Wrh2 (talk) 16:12, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
Thai provincial seals
All Thai provincial seals are public domain under Thai law (anything that published in Royal Gazette are PD, given as PD-TH-exempt licence). They are not related with whoever has uploaded; they can legally exist on Commons. I must revert your edits that nominate for deleting them. (Such as File:Seal Uthai Thani.png etc.) --Octahedron80 (talk) 15:37, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
They were deleted in 2008 because no one was able to tell whether {{PD-TH-exempt}} applies or not. As far as I can see, you have not provided any new information to the copyright status, so the original deletion reason still seems to be valid. --Stefan4 (talk) 15:44, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
Mit første forsøg med at kopiere filer fra Wikitravel virkede ikke. Kan din bot lave en uploadlog fra filer fra Wikitravel? Så er det måske hurtigere bare at kopiere dem fra wts/shared og så lave en rigtig log med din bot? --MGA73 (talk) 19:18, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
De där ska ha uppladdningslogg för Wikitravel nu. Jag antar att man kan ta bort ImportBot-loggen eftersom den inte verkar fylla någon funktion. Många av filerna verkar även finnas på en.wikivoyage-old.org, så jag föreslår att du låter din robot söka igenom det projektet efter filer att märka med NowCommons. --Stefan4 (talk) 22:48, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
Det fungerar (med datum på tyska), men tar längre tid än andra filer eftersom jag måste skriva in filnamn på Wikitravel och Commons manuellt. Dessutom fungerar inte tools:~magog/oldver.php på projekt utan API, så det tar extra tid att ladda upp gamla versioner (t.ex. File:Angkor-map.png). Jag ska be att du bara laddar upp filer från tyska och italienska Wikitravel på det här sättet eftersom filer från Wikitravel på andra språk ska finnas någonstans på xx.wikivoyage-old.org. --Stefan4 (talk) 18:51, 25 December 2012 (UTC)
Ok. Så nøjes jeg med filer fra de wikitravel. Vi kan næsten få klaret alle filerne på shared på den her måde. --MGA73 (talk) 19:50, 25 December 2012 (UTC)
Jeg kan stadig ikke komme på wts. Men har kopieret ~150 filer flere fra de.wt så der er desværre en masse arbejde til dig. Jeg har forsøgt at undgå alt der henviser til en.wt eller andre steder.
Ja, jeg tror godt vi kan antage, at filerne er de samme men vi kunne også bare spørge en eller anden om de kan tjekke. --MGA73 (talk) 22:03, 25 December 2012 (UTC)
Jag kommer inte heller åt WTS. Ska man kanske säga till voy:de:User:RolandUnger eller voy:de:User:DerFussi? Jag vet inte hur ofta de tittar in på WTS och upptäcker att något är fel.
Ja, jag har sett att det dykt upp nya filer i kategorin. Det var därför det dök upp en raderingsvarning för dig: medan jag gick igenom filerna, upptäckte jag ett foto på en alltför ny bro i Slovenien. --Stefan4 (talk) 22:16, 25 December 2012 (UTC)
Jeg har flyttet lidt flere til Commons. De er ikke alle fra wikitravel/de så du må bare springe dem over, du ikke kan lave en log til. RolandUnger har tjekket filerne og har fjernet kategorien men de burde være i Category:Files by Hans Musil. Og skulle der være nogen uden review så overlever vi nok også uden :-) --MGA73 (talk) 10:08, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
Jag har även gått igenom min bevakningslista eftersom jag lagt in några filer från Wikitravel i kategorin "MTC2" på WTS. Du missade tydligen File:Pensacola-Evenings-Olde-Seville.jpg (som kom från ett annat wikiprojekt). Jag ska be att du inte kopierar ImportBot-filer som påstås komma från Wikitravel Shared eller engelska, franska, ryska, nederländska eller svenska Wikitravel. Dessa finns på wikivoyage-old under samma namn och bör kopieras därifrån istället. --Stefan4 (talk) 15:36, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
The Working Man's Barnstar
The Working Person's Barnstar
For your work wikivoyage and Commons to make sure we get all the files properly moved to Commons.... You should have a brand new Ferrari but all I can afford is this barnstar :-) MGA73 (talk) 15:46, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
Wikivoyage images with a different name on Commons
Do you have a script to handle this on the local wikis? I could write one up but it would take considerable time. I'm assuming, perhaps incorrectly, that the local wikivoyages are currently pointing to a Commons image of the wrong name and need to be updated asap. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 18:31, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
I have a script for this. Almost all file names are up-to-date. I try to run the script once a week or so to get files which have recently been transferred by User:MGA73bot2, but almost all files are transferred to Commons under the same name, so there are few names to update. If the language is listed under Incubator:Incubator:Wikivoyage import#Ex-Wikitravel editions, then file names can't be updated yet, because the language hasn't been imported to WMF servers. The plan is to import at least some of the projects, and after that, it will be necessary to update all file names as soon as possible. See m:Requests for new languages#Wikivoyage for links to pages about the import progress for each language.
I also have a different script which can list file usage on Wikivoyage file information pages. You can see it in use here. I have so far only added file usage to files tagged with "KeepLocal" (because a user wanted to work on those files), but I could add file usage to files available on Commons under a different name if you want to delete such files. However, if it says that a file with the same name is in use on Wikitravel, then the file can't be deleted because the file name presumably needs to be updated on a project which is waiting to be imported. There is no point in trying to change any file names directly on Wikitravel: en:Internet Brands decided to switch off Special:Export in August, so changes made after that can't be imported to WMF servers. The script is very slow, so it might take several days to tag all files in that category. This is partially because Internet Brands decided to switch off the Mediawiki API on Wikitravel: I have to download the full HTML pages from Wikitravel and use some regular expressions on the pages to find file usage. Very annoying. --Stefan4 (talk) 22:19, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
OK... um, what does that mean in terms of when we can delete images from WV-old that are marked as a different image? Because there are 5000+ of them, which is a non-trivial amount. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 18:14, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
If my bot tells that a file is unused, then the file can be deleted.
If my bot tells that a file is in use on Wikivoyage, then the file name needs to be updated on Wikivoyage. After updating the file names, the file can be deleted. There should be very few of these cases.
If my bot tells that a file is in use on Wikitravel, then we can't do anything yet but have to wait for actions on Meta and/or Incubator. --Stefan4 (talk) 20:25, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
For example, if it looks like this, then it is safe to delete. If it looks like this, then we need to wait for further actions at Meta, Incubator and/or Bugzilla before we can do anything. If neither tag is used, then my bot has not yet checked whether the file can be deleted or not. --Stefan4 (talk) 00:29, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
It does not look so pretty. What do you think. Is there a bug in conversion? Or what do you think?
It would not take to long to unzip the files and upload them here but if they look like this then I'm not sure it is very usable. --MGA73 (talk) 17:59, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
Selvom de er besværlige så ville det være dejligt at få afsluttet et projekt. Skal nok tjekke de næste lidt bedre - kan jo se at du har fundet lige lovlig mange "junk-filer" på det seneste ;-) --MGA73 (talk) 16:50, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
Hov. Glemte lige spørgsmålet: Kan din bot tjekke om og hvor billederne er brugt? Hvis filerne er ubrugte så er det jo ikke nødvendigt at bruge for meget tid på dem. --MGA73 (talk) 16:54, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
Det finns också mängder av ImportBot-filer som har märkts med {{Ignore|Old imports from WT shared}}. Dessa ska finnas på WTS under samma namn, men man borde ändå gå igenom dessa filer någon gång för att se om de ska ha {{NowCommons}} eller något annat kopierat från WTS. Jag tar och undersöker ImportBot-filerna och ser vad som kan flyttas till Commons. --Stefan4 (talk) 17:04, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
Bra! Några av dessa finns även på WTS, så det skulle vara bra om du kan se var det går att lägga till "NowCommons" där. Jag ser att du använde "NowCommons", så jag rättade det till "Wikivoyage:NowCommons". --Stefan4 (talk) 18:43, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
Ja det er standard for botten. På sv tilføjede jeg en ekstra, så der var begge skabeloner. Der er nu kun 19 tilbage på shared :-)
Jeg tror at sv er den letteste at gøre færdig nu. Der er ikke mange filer og vi kan nok bedre svensk end fransk og nederlandsk :-D --MGA73 (talk) 20:34, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
Nu finns det en massa uppladdningsloggar för filerna. Jag tycker att det är viktigare att föra över så mycket som möjligt från engelska Wikivoyage och WTS innan andra tagit bort alla röda länkar på alla sidor och bytt ut mot andra bilder. --Stefan4 (talk) 21:18, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
Tydligen har folk på svenska Wikivoyage redan börjat plocka bort filer från sidor om länkarna är röda, så jag gjorde en snabbkoll av filerna. Större delen av filerna är flaggor och kartor som dessutom är oanvända. Kvar finns fyra filer som behöver föras över till Commons. Kan du föra över dem? Sedan behöver vi gå igenom alla sidor och stoppa in bilderna i dem igen. Längst ner står det var de användes i november. --Stefan4 (talk) 23:10, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
De er flyttet - men det har du jo allerede set :-)
Hvis ikke de resterende filer kan bruges til noget, så kunne vi vælge bare at ignorere dem. På et tidspunkt bliver de jo nok slettet eller hjemmesiden lukket. --MGA73 (talk) 23:53, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
Forresten så er mit bedste bud vedrørende File:Sanfrancisco fishermanswharf map wv.svg at jeg slog api fra nogle sekunder mens botten arbejdede fordi jeg i et andet vindue skulle lave noget på shared. Måske fik det botten til at lave denne fejl jeg ikke har set før eller siden. Kan du rette loggen? --MGA73 (talk) 20:38, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
Kvar på Shared hittar jag två DSB-kartor: [13] och [14]. Det står att personen som laddade upp filerna hade tillstånd att göra detta, men skulle verkligen Commons godta dessa utan OTRS? Dessutom är kartorna inaktuella, men de kanske ändå kan vara intressanta ur ett historiskt perspektiv. --Stefan4 (talk) 21:45, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
Filerna verkar inte finnas på något Wikivoyage-projekt. Det innebär att det finns två problem med dessa. För det första finns det inget MediaWiki API på dessa projekt, så det är mycket svårare att köra robotskript där. För det andra kommer förmodligen inte Internet Brands att tillåta att vi märker filer med NowCommons, vilket gör det svårare att veta vad som är kvar och var på Commons filerna finns. Vi får börja med övriga projekt och försöka komma på någon lösning senare... --Stefan4 (talk) 22:14, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
Godt spørgsmål. Men ja, jeg tænker også at vi flytter så meget vi kan fra Wikivoyage. Når det så er gjort kan vi altid se om vi kan finde noget brugbart på wikitravel. Vi kan evt. nøjes med at kopiere dem manuelt og så nøjes med at lave et "licensereview" og så lade være med at have en upload log. --MGA73 (talk) 22:54, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
Det missade jag. Jag försöker sortera filer så att det är lättare att hitta filer med licens. På så vis går det snabbare att kopiera många filer till Commons. Nu lägger jag till en extra kategori: "Category:PD-self files 2". --Stefan4 (talk) 21:12, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
Dear Sir Stefan
As you suggested deleting files series aircraft it is my duty to warn you: There are two types of images is a fine art photography and documentary photography of the other. Our (Serbian) copyright law as public domain is covered by documentary photography and presented to the license concerned. Photo documentary photography of the aircraft such as photographs, events, people, works of art, documents, artifacts, buildings and the like. If you can cite numerous examples. Mr. Mick is a dental student and his interpretation of the matter is unprofessional. We in the Serbian Wikipedia because we have problems and therefore come here. Best regards Dušan Basić--Dusanbasic (talk) 20:52, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
If you claim that the images are in the public domain, then you need to show why the images are in the public domain. Currently, the files have been tagged with a nonsense licence tag. The files were previously deleted at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Ikarus IO 2.jpg because you failed to show that the images are in the public domain before the discussion ended. --Stefan4 (talk) 22:22, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
Dear Stefan!
Photos concerned the public domain because it has made the Royal Yugoslav Air Force, which does not exist since 17.04.1941. year. How to get a confirmation from them? By markings on the aircraft can be seen that this is a fact. Please consult about a team of aviation experts familiar to you. Arckraft "Resava" is owned by the Yugoslav Royal Aero Club can be seen in the Register of Civil Aircraft of the Kingdom of Yugoslavia. JKAK also does not exist since 1941. Thank you for your work and kind regards. Dušan Basić
The copyright expires in Serbia 70 years after the death of the photographer, not 70 years after the organisation which created the photos becomes defunct. Also, in the United States, the copyright often expires 95 years after the photo was first published, and these photos hadn't even been taken 95 years ago. --Stefan4 (talk) 13:05, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
"everything else will be postponed. "
Since you are single-handedly destroying pretty much of the Commons right now, without the slightest pressing reason, I hope that you indeed will postpone everything else (i. e. deleting my and other's years of work). --FA2010 (talk) 19:59, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
Var har du de filerna? Det låter som att filerna är {{PD-author}} om de postats på "the sodipodi-list mailing list" av Áki G. Karlsson. Går det att se om filerna postats där eller ej? Går det att koppla breven till avsändaren på något sätt? Jag ser ingen avsändaradress. --Stefan4 (talk) 00:52, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
Du kan se nogle af dem her. Jeg har desværre ikke kunnet finde filerne på det link jeg gav dig først.
Har du overblik over, om der er nogle filer nogle steder, der kan kopieres? Der er nogle på en og wts der har "move" skabelon men jeg synes ikke, at de var flytteklar (der mangler fx en licens ellet et link til originalfilen). --MGA73 (talk) 18:40, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
Jag tror att det är säkrast att inte importera ikonerna, även om vissa förmodligen kan laddas upp som {{PD-ineligible}}. Jag tittade lite på e-postlistan men hittade inga av bilderna där. Det finns säkert många liknande ikoner på andra ställen.
Många av de återstående filerna på projekten saknar licens. Jag föreslår att vi kategoriserar alla filer efter vad de har för licens så att vi lättare hittar filer som går att flytta. Sedan får vi se vad som är kvar efteråt och om några licenser kan läggas till med hjälp av voy:Wikivoyage:Archive of wts-old license upgrade. --Stefan4 (talk) 22:50, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
If you created this project page, 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!
Hello!
I've received the notice, that File:Yuri Gagarin.jpg is missing evidence of permission. It says: "Please provide evidence of permission by either providing a link to a site with an explicit grant of permission that complies with the licensing policy".
Here is the pdf file that contains photo www.federalspace.ru/download/video/docs/Press_bull_3.pdf And there is a note in Russian (in the pdf file), says: "The Bulletin is recommended to use by press media without mention the source". It also has an e-mail adress: orgkom50@roscosmos.ru. Is it OK?
Regards. — Preceding unsigned comment added by KIX4U (talk • contribs) 2013-01-15T21:29:18 (UTC)
File:Titov, Khruschev, Gagarin 1961.jpg is fine if it is part of the 140,000 images. I don't know how to find out if it is part of those 140,000 images or not. Maybe there are other images in that archive which aren't covered by the Creative Commons licence. Someone seems to have questioned whether the image is freely licensed and nominated it for deletion. At File:Croiseur russe Askold.jpg, it says that the French national library has determined that the image is in the public domain in France. It says "Copyright : domaine public", so the licence looks correct to me. --Stefan4 (talk) 14:28, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
License reviewer
Hvorfor er du ikke license reviewer? Tænkte, at det ville være smart, at du selv reviewede nogle af de filer du alligevel har tilføjet en upload log til eller har tjekket :-) --MGA73 (talk) 19:48, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
I'm glad to see this is catching on -- I hope it will ward off some of the lack of understanding that in the absence of FOP, you can't upload photos of copyrighted works. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:19, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
I think it's a very useful template. It provides a quick explanation of what FOP means and avoids extra questions about why you can't take photos of buildings or statues or whatever. I suppose that it should be translated. --Stefan4 (talk) 15:33, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
Translation, yes. I figured that once it got some traction with half a dozen editors beyond me (and now you), that I might put a request up on the Village Pumps in several languages. Of course, if you want to do Swedish, go to it.... . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:40, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
No good deed goes unpunished
None of the Kassal images are mine. I was simply cleaning them up and moving them to the commons. Seemed pretty clear and easy to me. The WWII pictures are 70 year old photos from the army, etc. Thanks for systematically eviscerating all those images. Oh well. Evrik (talk) 20:05, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
That's not what EVIDENCE says. Let me quote: "Typically that requires at least that the source of the file be specified. (Note that in the case of files found on the Web, this should not be the URL of the file, but the URL of the page containing the file, so that Commons editors can find background information when required)." I just got an email from the original uploader. It seems that these were all scanned from the private collection of Mr. Kassal. Mr. Kassal identified the source of the photo, and that is what was put on the picture. None of these photos existed on the internet prior to being uploaded on en.wiki. The original uploader was acting in good faith. Evrik (talk) 22:17, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
Read the previous sentence: "In all cases the uploader must provide appropriate evidence to demonstrate either that the file is in the public domain or that the copyright owner has released it under a suitable licence." For example, at File:Kennedy and Kassal.jpg, it just says "White House photo", without any way to verify that it indeed is a photo taken by the White House. Thus, the uploader has obviously provided insufficient evidence to demonstrate that the file is in the public domain. --Stefan4 (talk) 22:22, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
Status på Wikivoyage filerne
Hej!
Nu er Wikivoyage officielt online, og som forventet blev ikke alle filer tjekket/flyttet inden da.
Mange af filerne har ingen licens. Hvad fandt vi egentlig ud af? Var det ok at tilføje en licens på alle filerne med henvisning til MediaWiki:Uploadtext? Hvis ja, så kunne man sætte en bot til at gøre det på alle filer uploaded efter en bestemt dato. Evt. med en speciel skabelon af hensyn til dem, der skal tjekke filerne (Fx "Denne licens er tilføjet med bot ud fra upload datoen. Tjek venligst grundigt, om ...").
Hvis du har nogle filer eller kategorier, der er tjekket, så må du gerne give mig et tip. For det er lidt svært at følge med over det hele. --MGA73 (talk) 13:26, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
Licens från MediaWiki:Uploadtext är en komplicerad sak. Generellt kan man dela in alla filer i tre kategorier:
Gamla filer: Dessa måste ha en licens angiven, annars är de olicensierade.
Nyare filer: Dessa är licensierade under {{Cc-by-sa-1.0}} om ingen annan licens valts.
Ännu nyare filer: Dessa är licensierade under {{Cc-by-sa-3.0}} om ingen annan licens valts.
Problemet är att MediaWiki:Uploadtext ändrats flera gånger och vid olika tidpunkter på olika projekt. Exempel:
voy:Special:PermanentLink/2076834: Det står att "All images must be compatible with our licence" men det står inte vad som sker om bilden inte är det. Om bilden laddades upp när det stod så på sidan, antar jag att filen saknar licens om ingen angivits.
voy:Special:PermanentLink/2076838: Det står att "All uploaded images are automatically licensed under CC-by-SA 1.0, if you are the original creator and you don't select a license" men det står inte hur man ska välja en licens. Om man skriver {{PD-self}} har man valt en licens, men man har även valt en licens om man skrivit "Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike" i kommentarsfältet. Eventuellt har man även valt en licens om man skrivit "all rights reserved" där. Här får man vara försiktig så att man inte gör något misstag. En robot kan inte se om någon skrivit något om en licens i en kommentar.
voy:Special:PermanentLink/2076848: "Please select a compatible license from the pulldown menu below. Otherwise all uploads are automatically licensed under CC-by-SA 3.0" Detta är enklare: har man inte valt en licens i listan på uppladdningsformuläret, är filen automatiskt licensierad som CC-BY-SA 3.0.
Tänk på att olika regler kan gälla på olika projekt. Om filen laddades upp i april eller maj 2007, säger MediaWiki:Uploadtext på WTS att filen är licensierad som CC-BY-SA 1.0, medan MediaWiki:Uploadtext på engelska Wikivoyage säger att den är olicensierad. Man måste tänka på vilket projekt filen laddades upp till.
Man kanske kan låta en robot lägga till en mall som säger att filen eventuellt är licensierad som cc-by-sa-1.0 eller cc-by-sa-3.0 men att det behöver bekräftas. På grund av alla underliga och varierande formuleringar är jag dock inte säker på att det är en bra idé att lägga in en licens automatiskt. --Stefan4 (talk) 13:56, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
Ja, man skal passe på. Men botten kan jo tjekke datoen for upload (hvis man kan finde ud af hvordan) og så kan man ud fra det definere nogle regler for om der kan tilføjes en licens eller hvilken. Men man bør tjekke hver enkelt wiki for sig selv, da de kan have forskellige tekster ved upload.
Jag föreslår att vi börjar med filer som har en licens så att vi kan kopiera så många filer som möjligt innan alla filer bytts ut mot andra på Wikivoyage. Sedan föreslår jag att vi skapar tre mallar som läggs in av en robot: "ingen licens enligt MediaWiki:Uploadtext", "eventuellt cc-by-sa-1.0 enligt MediaWiki:Uploadtext" samt "eventuellt cc-by-sa-3.0 enligt MediaWiki:Uploadtext". Slutligen får vi gå igenom alla dessa filer och se vad som går att föra över. --Stefan4 (talk) 15:57, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
Ja vi kan jo ikke nå det hele på en gang så vi må vælge. Du har sat nogle af de vigtigste filer i en kategori for Priority files og de haster vel mere end dem, der er ubrugte. Så dem kunne vi jo se på først.
Jag har kommenterat där. Jag fick nyligen robotflagga på voy:pt: och håller på att uppdatera filnamn där. Efter att namnet uppdaterats tar jag bort uppgifter om filanvändning på portugisiska Wikitravel. --Stefan4 (talk) 19:32, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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[15][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)
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)
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)
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)
... 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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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,[16] such images are not free for Commons. --Eleassar(t/p)09:16, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
Hi Stefan4. Thank you for response. I uploaded the file under Schengen Area3.svg . Maybe other languages might use it.--Free ottoman (talk) 21:23, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
coins of uae
I believe that the coins of the UAE are public domain as per the first clause of template:pd-united arab emirates.--عبد المؤمن (talk) 02:28, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
John Fekner City Squadd.jpg
Stefan- why did you mark this file: John Fekner City Squadd.jpg for deletion. The article that was submitted by Daniellasuttoni who was in contact with me directly and the article was guided and approved by a Wikipedia editor MatthewVanitas
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.
Indeed. You can take photos of some coins such as Russian roubles but not other coins such as British pounds. --Stefan4 (talk) 15:49, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
You can take it with persistence! I'm sure. you can read My usurpation request on this wiki! You should go to the Lymantria's talk page and make a conversation about this. Don't Be Disappointed.--MehdiTalk07:13, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
:( 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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
I guess that the problem with ISAF is that the Flickr account hosts images from various sources. For example, https://secure.flickr.com/photos/isafmedia/8592468876 is claimed to have been taken by the Italian army and is thus unfree. There is no evidence that ISAF has been allowed to publish this under a CC-BY licence. --Stefan4 (talk) 23:06, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
No problem! You always need to be careful with files on Wikipedia: some of them will be copyright violations. --Stefan4 (talk) 21:06, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
{{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)
"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)
The evidence is in SL Benfica official website! Can you put the right information on the images please? Thanks! JozeSlb (talk) 11:06, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
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)
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)
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 [19] 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)
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)
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)
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)
{{PD-1923}} means that the book is in the public domain in the United States. However, it says nothing about the copyright status in the United Kingdom. --Stefan4 (talk) 19:34, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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.
Again, if you believe this is a copyright violation, explain why and delete the file, no problem. Jahoe (talk) 19:33, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
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)
URAA copyright issue: when copyright expires in Canada it also expires in USA
The US Copyright office says that to be covered: "The work is not in the public domain in the eligible source country through expiration of the term of protection." That is, when its Canadian copyright expires its US protection ends. see http://www.copyright.gov/gatt.html circular 38 b online hereRjensen (talk) 02:45, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
You are misreading the document. That is about restoration of the copyright (bringing it back from the public domain if it had entered the public domain in the United States for some reason). If "The work [was] not in the public domain in the eligible source country through expiration of the term of protection" on the date of restoration, then copyright was restored, and the work was brought back from the public domain in the United States. The date of restoration was 1 January 1996 for Canada. Unless the work was in the public domain in Canada on 1 January 1996, the copyright was restored in the United States and remains protected for 95 years since publication. --Stefan4 (talk) 14:46, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
the document says "Ownership of a restored copyright vests initially in the author or initial rightholder, as determined by the law of the restored work’s source country." That ownership has expired per Canadian law. Rjensen (talk) 21:31, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
On the date of restoration, the copyright holder is the author or initial rightholder, as determined by the law of the restored work's source country. You missed the word "initially" after the word "vests". Once the copyright has been restored, the copyright holder in the United States is only changed if the copyright is transferred to someone else in a normal way (for example by inheritance or by signing a contract). --Stefan4 (talk) 21:16, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
As it was still protected by copyright in Canada on 1 January 1996, it either has a restored copyright or a subsisting copyright. In either case, it is protected by copyright in the United States, so it doesn't matter whether the copyright is "restored" or "subsisting". If the archive is the copyright holder and indicates this as being in the public domain, then this could maybe be treated as {{PD-author}} in the United States. If the archive is the copyright holder to lots of useful images, it may be worth to try to get an OTRS release from the archive. --Stefan4 (talk) 10:25, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
If this image is affected by US FOP in your opinion, please consider filing a DR, If not please make a reply here. I don't know if the structure is temporary or permanent...or is copyrightable.
PS: You might consider asking to be a license reviewer as you know more about copyright than even me sometimes. I'm afraid that I cannot be the only trusted person who marks flickr human review images as I work full time in Canada. If you apply for this position, please leave a message on my Commons talkpage and I will support your nomination. Best Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 21:02, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
I already am a licence reviewer, but I haven't had much time reviewing licences, especially not recently. I assume that this is an artwork, and the guy who made it refers to himself as an artist in his own biography. --Stefan4 (talk) 21:24, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
Filer på Wikivoyage
Hej Stefan! Der sker ikke så meget på Wikivoyage i øjeblikket. Desværre er det jo nok ikke fordi der ikke er mere at lave. Har du et overblik over hvad der mangler og hvad der er lettest at gå til? --MGA73 (talk) 19:12, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
Jag har inte gjort något alls på Wikivoyage på ett tag. Jag antar att det fortfarande finns flera tusen filer som helst ska flyttas över till Commons. Det enklaste är nog att börja med filer som har en licens av något slag och föra över många sådana. --Stefan4 (talk) 23:48, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
Comment
Thanks for your comments. I had asked Admin E. Zelenko here and he gave some advise. As he notes the flickr source is very secondary and I can't verify the Wisconsin Book is PD. So, I filed a Speedy...but perhaps it would have been proper to file a regular DR.
PS: If possible, please try to mark some flickr image please. I do work a job in real life. I don't know where the other licensed reviewers went. Best Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 23:37, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
If important information is missing, I think that it is better to use a deletion discussion instead of using {{Speedy}}. For what it is worth, Flickr tells that it is from "the 1940 Wisconsin Blue Book". I don't know how exact this information is. I think that a claim by a random Flickr user that something was published without a copyright notice is just as reliable as a claim by a random Commons user saying the same thing. --Stefan4 (talk) 23:45, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
Comment: OK. I will reinstate my pass these 2 images. But please consider passing some of the other flickr images since you clearly have more experience on copyright issues. After all, you are trusted. I have to ask other Admins often. Best Wishes, --Leoboudv (talk) 00:08, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
The uploader gave the source for this image. Please decide to mark it or file a DR. I agree its a derivative image. Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 06:15, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
The tag says that the image is a derivative work of an unsourced work, not that the image itself is unsourced. The uploader needs to provide the source to the derivative work too. --Stefan4 (talk) 13:03, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
Hi ... the question I was wondering about, which I missed your response to if it was there, was whether you believe that commons images also have to pass muster under US law (in this regard; even if they are taken in a country other than the U.S.), as they are hosted on a site subject to US law?--Epeefleche (talk) 21:46, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
Whatever the country is -- you are saying that to be certain it it permissible, since Commons is a US website you would have to satisfy US law ... correct? As we are hosting the image on a US website. And as far as you know, that may lead to US law applying.--Epeefleche (talk) 03:18, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
Jag bara undrade lite over mina foton som du anmält som upphovsrättbrott. Det är inte så att jag tror att du inte vet vad du håller på med, utan det är mer så att jag blev nyfiken på hur det där med det upphovsrättsliga funkar egentligen. Det rörde sig om en bild av en järnvägsstation i Marocko samt ett foto av en reklmapelare på Åland.
Jag skrev ett svar på fildiskussionssidan, men den sidan raderades väldigt snabbt, så du kanske aldrig hann se svaret. Lagarna ser ut på lite olika sätt i olika länder och är ibland (enligt mig) väldigt dumma:
I Sverige får man fotografera alla byggnader och utomhuskonst (till exempel statyer) enligt 24 § svenska upphovsrättslagen. För utomhuskonst gäller att konsten måste finnas där permanent. Reklamaffischer byts ut lite då och då och får därför inte fotograferas. Text får inte heller fotograferas. Observera att kartor räknas som text enligt 2 § upphovsrättslagen.
I Finland (inklusive Åland) får man fotografera alla byggnader. Foton på utomhuskonst får inte användas i förvärvssyfte eftersom detta kränker skulptörens upphovsrätt. Detta framgår av 25 § finska upphovsrättslagen. Commons tillåter endast bilder som kan användas i förvärvssyfte. Om du vill ta en bild på en staty i Finland måste du alltså förvissa dig om att upphovsrätten till statyn gått ut i både Finland och USA. Upphovsrätten har gått ut i Finland om skulptören dog före 1943 samt i USA om statyn sattes upp före 1923. Om upphovsrätten inte ännu gått ut, går den ut i Finland 70 år efter skulptörens död samt i USA 95 år efter att statyn sattes upp. Dessvärre innebär det att man måste identifiera skulptören och statyns ålder innan man kan ladda upp några bilder. Man kan anta att en person som gjort en modern reklamaffisch inte dog före 1943, så reklamaffischer går inte att ladda upp. Om konstverket inte är huvudmotivet utan bara skymtas någonstans i bakgrunden, behöver man inte bry sig om konstverkets upphovsrätt.
I Marocko är det ännu värre. Om man önskar ladda upp en bild på en byggnad, måste man förvissa sig om att arkitekten dog för minst 50 år sedan eftersom bilden annars kränker arkitektens upphovsrätt enligt marockansk lag. Om man vill ladda upp en bild på en staty eller något annat gäller samma sak. En bild på en hel stadsdel går bra eftersom ingen enskild byggnad utgör bildens huvudmotiv. Om man åker dit som turist, är nog det största problemet att man inte har någon aning om hur man tar reda på vem arkitekten är, när denne dog eller om han fortfarande är i livet.
I andra länder gäller olika regler som varierar från land till land och beskrivs på COM:FOP. Du kanske kan finna intresse i följande länkar:
En sydkoreansk reklamfirma dömdes till tio miljoner won i böter för upphovsrättsbrott för att ha avbildat en byggnad i en reklamfilm och i reklam i tidskrifter utan arkitektens tillstånd.[20]
En dansk dagstidning fick ett kravbrev på 10 000 danska kronor från skulptörens arvingar för att ha använt ett foto statyn Den lille Havfrue i Köpenhamn utan tillstånd.[21]
Jösses jävlar. Nå, detta bekräftade väl det jag misstänkte -- alltså att du visste vad du gjorde. Kanske kommer jag inte att minnas allt detta nästa gång jag försöker ladda upp nåt, men måhända hittar du det innan nån stämmer röven av mej... Jag har större respekt för upphovsrätten än många andra, men en del av detta är ju direkt larvigt.
Nå, tack för förklaringen hur som helst, och allt gott.
Hi Stefan,
I had forgotten that I had failed this image. I will revoke/revert my flickr faill mark and ask that you to add the right license. On the other image DR, here is the discussion It is a photo of Mrs Saker which the daughter likely could/would have taken herself as a personal photo. This is an old map in the book...and it is more likely that the daughter just used an old map book. Therefore, {{PD-old-70}} or {{PD-UK-unknown}} likely applies. I don't which license applies, but please feel free to choose the license that you feel is most appropriate. You don't need my permission. Thank You, --Leoboudv (talk) 00:45, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
Please consider marking this image and passing or failing it as I am unsure about it. The statue is copyright free (artist died in the 1920's) but the flickr account only has 30 images. Best Wishes, --Leoboudv (talk) 20:56, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
The Flickr images might be Flickrwashing, but it is also very possible that the account is legitimate. I looked at the image yesterday but didn't know what to do, and I've done some more searching now. The Flickr user claims to represent http://www.invasionidigitali.it/ but can you find any link in the other direction? --Stefan4 (talk) 21:34, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
Comment That Italian web site has an NC license. I don't know if its a flickrwash. With only 30 images on the flickraccount, it might be. Feel free to file a Dr if you wish. As for the .ogv files in human review, I cannot access them as I told EugeneZelenko here with my old computer. So, what I cannot see, I don't mark. It may or may not be derivative images...but I can't tell with my computer. Perhaps you know an Admin who can access these video files and decide. Sorry. PS: I asked Lymantria if he could send a message to you about video files. Best Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 23:12, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
Reviewing videos
Dear Stefan4, Leoboudv asked me to contact you about your concerns about flickrreviewing of videos. This indeed is a difficult matter, be it alone that it is somewhat more complicated to check that the uploaded video and the video at Flickr are the same. For the rest however, you may keep in mind that your reviewing is just a "rough" check that the video is available at the suggested license at Flickr. You are right that information on videos is somewhat thin. The best information perhaps is Commons:Video#Videos and copyright. In my opinion when a performance, concert or something alike is shown in the video, this almost certainly is a copyrighted DW and could best be dealt with in a DR. De Minimis is always difficult, for images as well as for videos. Whether we should treat De Minimis per frame of the video or per video as a whole is unclear to me. Perhaps a good idea to start a discussion about here. Kind regards, Lymantria (talk) 08:09, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
I'm aware that User:FlickreviewR only checks for the licence on Flickr, but as a human, I prefer to do a better work than that. If I have reason to believe that a Flickr user isn't the copyright holder to everything, then I prefer to nominate it for deletion instead of marking the Flickr review as "passed". Films are horrible in that respect.
For example, do you have an opinion about File:Hednesford Hills Raceway - Caravan Roll Over.ogv? There are some people speaking in the background, but you can barely hear what they are saying, so that is de minimis to me. However, after some time, someone starts speaking in a speaker, and that's getting more serious. Also, do the car driver or other people in the film hold performance rights to any portion of the film? --Stefan4 (talk) 21:09, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
Oh Yes, doing your human check certainly improves the reviewing quality and it filters a lot of unjustified uploads. I myself do these checks as well. Considering the Caravan Roll Over: I would consider the voice comments as "de minimis", but that is questionable, and it may also not be beyond the threshold of originality. The roll over itself you might see as performance of a "choreography", and I would consider that as being beyond the threshold of originality. Again questionable. And there is the possibly different points of view according to US and UK laws. A DR might lead to a good discussion. Kind regards, Lymantria (talk) 05:39, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
Hey Stefan4,
I'm writing on behalf of ElNavarroG, as he sought for my help regarding the tagging of some of his uploads (the same happened to me and you put the template warnings in my discussion, my bad!). We'll send all the OTRS declarations of consent asap, and at least one picture (File:Del'aireal'aire.jpg) will have to be restored but no big deal though. Sorry for the inconvenience, best regards, ESM (talk) 22:01, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
Could you explain why several of those images appeared outside Commons before they were uploaded to Commons? --Stefan4 (talk) 13:25, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
Note: I passed this image because Armenia now has full Freedom of Panorama due to a recent change in this country's laws. A pity the rest of the former Soviet Union's states don't. Kind Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 05:08, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
I uploaded the picture from Wikipedia from here. I provided all the info available. It was marked by a bot for uploading to the commons. I've no other info on the pic. So if it's to be deleted, I guess I should remove the notice on Wikipedia that it's been uploaded here? Farrajak (talk) 16:06, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
I must have missed the date of the photo. If the photo is from 1856, it is almost certainly in the public domain. It should not be deleted in my opinion. --Stefan4 (talk) 18:09, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
Concerning this file, I noticed painter's signature in bottom left corner, something like G. Duzandi... There is a great probability this picture is older than 100 years, but I can't be 100% certain. Can you try to decipher the painter? Thanks, Bojovnik (talk) 19:01, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
I tried that, didn't work. But, I still managed to find the guy: It's (scroll down) G. Durand (1800-1899), an American painter. All of his drawings concerning 1878 war were published at The Graphic, illustrated british newspapers, for instance, these. Cheers, --Bojovnik (talk) 23:37, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
It looks like a DR you launched was against a major copyvio uploader. Unfortunately since he uploades images from Chinese sites, I don't know where Bru216 is "taking" the images from as Glabb complains but it must be a lot. Perhaps you do. It past 2 AM now in Canada and I'm going to bed but if you know of any other uploads by this user, feel free to file a DR and notify Lymantria. Perhaps Lymantria can place sanctions and blacklist this person's flickr, panoramio and picasa accounts then. Bru216 has uploaded many images and I think I would have marked a few in the past not knowing that they were stolen. Goodnight, --Leoboudv (talk) 09:36, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
Copyright question
Your recent deletion notices with regard to "signs as artwork" have caused me to reconsider other images I have uploaded to Commons. Acting in good faith, I was under the impression that public displays of art (other than signs) were in the public domain, but I now see that is not the case, based on the write-up here: Commons:Public art and copyrights in the US. Consequently, it seems that all images of 2-D or 3-D museum exhibits, shown here and here would have to be deleted, even though the exhibits are on public display. Would it be permissible for me to begin inserting Speedy Deletion Templates on each of those image files, example shown here? -Woodlot (talk) 19:28, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
A tank is a utilitarian object: you use it for shooting at people, not for looking at it. According to the copyright law of the United States, there is no copyright protection for utilitarian objects (see COM:UA, and note that this sometimes is different in other countries). There are several photos of tanks and other utilitarian objects in Category:Mississippi Armed Forces Museum, and those photos should be fine and it should be possible to keep those.
Buildings are strictly speaking "artworks" (at least if built on 1 December 1989 or later when the law was changed), but there is a law which says that you can take photos of essentially all buildings (see {{FoP-US}}), so all of the photos of buildings are fine and can be kept. This is again something which is different in other countries. For example, photos of buildings in France are typically deleted unless the architect has been dead for at least 70 years (which causes a lot of extra trouble finding out who the architect is).
File:MAFM MedalofHonor.jpg shows lots of medals, but I would assume that the medals were made by the US government. As there is no copyright to works by the US government, those medals should be in the public domain. I also see a few plaques in this image, but those are unimportant to the image as a whole, so they should satisfy COM:DM and not be a problem.
Some other images look like problems. For example, File:MAFM World War II Casualties.jpg seems to contain a doll (or a statue or whatever you would call it) and doesn't look OK.
If you are uncertain about which images to delete, I would recommend you to use a deletion request instead or ask for help at COM:VPC. There can be a lot of issues involved. For example, something might be unimportant to an image (COM:DM) and if any of the items were displayed somewhere before 1978, then they had to carry a copyright notice or else they would automatically fall into the public domain. I don't know how old all of these things are. --Stefan4 (talk) 00:19, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for your response. We seem to be in agreement as to which image files pose a potential copyright problem—i.e., images of museum exhibits where mannequins are outfitted in period costumes. As such, Speedy Deletion tags seem to be the least complicated, for me, as the method of choice to removing the files; I would be tagging my own files for deletion, not those of another Commons User.-Woodlot (talk) 17:36, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
Hey, you are like one of the few long-term editors on this project that are in my sight every other day and are still not yet an admin. Any reason you have not RfA'ed yourself? Would you allow me to do it? It's about time ya know. russavia (talk) 22:52, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
Well, one concern is that I don't know if I would have time to use the extra things related to the admin status. I try to avoid requesting extra permissions if I don't know if I will have time to use those extra permissions. Also, I haven't needed any extra permissions to participate in discussions or uploading files. --Stefan4 (talk) 16:16, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
Special:DeletedContributions/Stefan4 would tell me otherwise; that you and the community would indeed benefit from you having the tools. You mark dozens upon dozens of files for being copyvios, meaning another admin then has to come along and delete, taking time away from other admin stuff they could do. If you had the tools you could delete these copyvios and the like on the spot, freeing up time for other admins. Having the tools doesn't mean you have to go out of your way to especially use them, but in your every day editing here on Commons having the tools would clearly be a benefit for you and "us". Would you care to RfA? Or allow me to nom you? russavia (talk) 17:07, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
I fully agree with this question (as mentioned above). I think your judgement is well enough that others do not have to judge it again. It would be nice if you had an emailaddress registered, though. Kind regards, Lymantria (talk) 17:22, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
Commons:Deletion requests/packaing violation
I've raised a question at User talk:Fastily regarding his closure of Commons:Deletion requests/packaing violation. Since you were the only participant other than the nominator, and since he deleted everything except for the ones that you asked to be kept, I'm uncertain about which of the other images you thought should be deleted. If you remember anything of it now (you voted 2½ months ago), your comments might be helpful. Nyttend (talk) 03:34, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
It seemed that the nominator selected random images of packaging and products without knowing what to look for. Some of the images were clearly ineligible for copyright (either utilitarian, like File:Sanyo VPC-S760 digatal camera.jpg, or below the threshold of originality, like File:Cup Noodles.jpg). Some of the images, like File:HK CWB Windsor Plaza Ground Floor Yamazaki Bakery.JPG, were clearly covered by FOP. Unfortunately, I don't remember what the other images looked like, so I can't determine if any other images should have been kept or not. It was one of those messy cases where it would have been better to split it up on multiple nominations. See also Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Ramyeon#Packaging violation where the nominator listed some other examples of packaging. There might also have been some more images amongst those which should have been kept. --Stefan4 (talk) 13:52, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for the help! I've cited your comments in a request to Fastily to undelete ones that he doesn't find to be clear copyvios; I'll renominate all of them individually, so that we can have clearer discussions on them. Nyttend (talk) 00:10, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
Please check these 4 images and feel free to pass them or file a speedy on them as they were uploaded by a bot and not a person--if they fail US FOP. Here are the photos:
why do you think this is a "German FoP case"? It isn't. Freedom of panorama in Germany doesn't apply to the inside of buildings. Regards --Rosenzweigτ19:44, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
The FOP categories are typically added to images related to FOP. For example, Category:French FOP cases is added to photos of French buildings, although FOP doesn't apply to French buildings. In the same way, I'd assume that it is appropriate to use a German FOP category for indoor glass. --Stefan4 (talk) 19:48, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
I believe that the FOP categories usually are used if the image shows something which is covered by FOP in at least one country. For example, Sweden, Denmark, Norway and Finland have freedom of panorama for buildings without any restrictions. That is, without requiring that the building is permanently installed or that it is outdoors or in a public place. Also, you mentioned FOP in the discussion. --Stefan4 (talk) 20:41, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
If these signs are generic enough to you, please pass them in the human flickr review category. Please also consider going through the human flickr review category and passing those signs which seems generic enough to you.
Thank You. Some signs are OK and some are not. So your input is helpful. PS: Don't be shy to mark a few images if you have the time. Best Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 18:47, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for your comments. Based on the design of the statue, it might be 'old' and installed by 1978. So, I said that it may be kept. Yes, its not easy to judge an age of a statue sometimes. --Leoboudv (talk) 21:10, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
Re File:Seven Degrees of Connectness.jpg PEERAGOGY HANDBOOK PROJECT
About the procedure of cancellation of the infographic File:Seven Degrees of Connectness.jpg, I am attaching the site where it is licensed under (CC-BY-SA) HERE..!!. therefore I ask you to restore it as (OER)- Open Educational Resource into Peeragogy Handbook project V1.0. Thank you..!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Siarmember (talk • contribs) 2013-06-02T19:44:17 (UTC)
Comment: Should I withdraw this DR? Maybe the drawing is too simple to be copyrighted in the picture. Just curious, --Leoboudv (talk) 08:18, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
Sorry, I entirely missed this question, and I've been quite busy lately, so I've got a bit behind with things. I think that the sign is copyrightable but that it satisfies COM:DM as the main object of the photo seems to be the bird sitting on the sign. --Stefan4 (talk) 15:47, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
The question in the deletion request remains, though: is this a scan from a private family album, or is it a scan of a magazine? --Stefan4 (talk) 10:11, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
Feel free to look at this CU request. You can vote for/against or decide to abstain. Its your decision if you know this Admin. I know this Admin so I decided to support the request since Herby retired. It seems straight forward to me but the discussion is getting heated. Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 03:36, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
I have been travelling and busy with other things, and I see that the CU request has closed by now. Generally speaking, I wouldn't worry about requests for advanced rights: there are usually lots of knowledgeable users who comment those requests, so it is unlikely that the outcome of any such request is bad for the project. --Stefan4 (talk) 20:20, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
Several of your transferred files with no visible description
I did this for the parent category (that includes all files in subcategories) a few days ago and it solved around 1000 cases. The easiest way to check if there are still some of your transfers left is probably VisualFileChange (source text RegExpr search for “Stefan4”). --Leyo11:31, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
I'd say that File:Chicken Ramen ひよこちゃん.jpg probably is OK with regard to Japanese law. Japanese courts generally seem to argue that toys aren't copyrightable as artworks because they are purely utilitarian (see for example http://www.courts.go.jp/hanrei/pdf/20090422091059.pdf). I would assume that this car is about as utilitarian as a toy. There is also the USA situation to worry about. There was this case where a US court found that a Japanese toy wasn't utilitarian (and thus copyrighted in the United States), although the same toy is utilitarian in Japan (and thus not copyrightable in Japan). Also, the US court ruling is from 1985, and US law has changed a bit after that, in particular in 1989 when the country joined the Berne Convention. I'm not sure if that is of any relevance here.
Hi Stefan. Waxes of the Hospital of Florence Museum were all made in the 1860s. They were just restored, so they may look newer. Sorry I forgot to write that in description. Please close the deleting processes beacuse of no reason, they are all in PD. Thank you. --Sailko (talk) 10:59, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
i have sent an Evidence of free license, permission license about the picture of Dareysteel radio interview in Amsterdam holland, but why the delate tagged on the picture is not yet taken out from the picture .... please can you verify... here is the picture. .File:Dareysteel picture on his radio interview in Amsterdam holland.jpg — Preceding unsigned comment added by Davidzicoman (talk • contribs) 2013-07-12T14:17:22 (UTC)
I have replaced the "no permission" notice with one saying that something has been sent by e-mail. If the e-mail contains a sufficient permission statement from the photographer, then this will presumably be settled soon. --Stefan4 (talk) 19:40, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
thanks for the good job stefan4, i hope it settled as soon as possible. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Davidzicoman (talk • contribs) 2013-07-15T15:08:37 (UTC)
The Scheme language specification is in the public domain
Preview the Cambridge edition here. It says "This work is in the public domain", and because the PDFs I uploaded is the same text, they are in the public domain too.
Musical Notation scripsit:
Let me ask again: Am I allowed to redistribute and modify the R6RS
specification documents commercially?
From the Summary at the beginning of R6RS:
# We intend this report to belong to the entire Scheme community, and
# so we grant permission to copy it in whole or in part without fee. In
# particular, we encourage implementors of Scheme to use this report
# as a starting point for manuals and other documentation, modifying it
# as necessary.
In other words, yes.
--
Clear? Huh! Why a four-year-old child John Cowan
could understand this report. Run out cowan@ccil.org
and find me a four-year-old child. I http://www.ccil.org/~cowan
can't make head or tail out of it.
--Rufus T. Firefly on government reports
The Dart language specification: see the "Licensing" section. It says that text in the spec is licensed under CC-BY, and code under BSD.
Where do I find the public domain statement on Google Books? All I can see is a copyright notice stating that the book is copyrighted. --Stefan4 (talk) 20:37, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
The Help Section states, "Non-admins may close a deletion request as keep if they have a good understanding of the process, and provided the closure is not controversial."
How would you like to proceed? If you are too busy, I can either ask another Admin to address this or try doing it. I've never handled this task so it would be a good learning experience. Please advise. Thank you, 301man (talk) 23:13, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
This appears to have been closed now. I have been away on holiday and haven't been online for some time. --Stefan4 (talk) 14:11, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
I have no problem with discussion. My desired outcome is to resolve issues surrounding the uploading of British military insignia and medals. SonofSetanta (talk) 09:58, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
Which country you think has the world's worst legal condition(s) for Wikimedia projects?
Hello, I think you are apperantly famillar with legal concerns for Wikimedia projects than me, could you answer my question? Which country you think has the world's worst legal condition(s) for Wikimedia projects? In my opinion, South Korea has a very bad legal condition for Wikimedia projects, because South Korea has no FoP even for architectures (on the contrary, North Korea has a full FoP and shorter copyright duration than South Korea and Most of European countries.), and has strict defamation laws. also I think France, Greece, and Saudi Arabia are bad countries. --Puramyun31 (talk) 05:48, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
You are missing one very important aspect: copyright isn't the only thing to consider. Two of the countries you mentioned, North Korea and Saudi Arabia, have huge limitations on the freedom of speech. For example, if you were to host Wikipedia in North Korea, you would probably have to fill up all articles with statements about how the leaders Kim Il-sung, Kim Jong-il and Kim Jong-un were very important to everything good in the entire world. Having to add lies about North Korean leaders to every Wikipedia article would in my opinion be much worse than not being able to illustrate an article about a house with an image of the house. --Stefan4 (talk) 12:09, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
Sorry for my stupid question. However, If do so, Which country you think has the best legal condition(s) for our projects? your home country (Sweden)? or currently our server-located country as it stands (United States)? or anywhere else? --Puramyun31 (talk) 00:46, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
One thing you should consider is what you mean with something being "free". One definition is that it should be possible for anyone, in any country, to use it. For example, if the work is unlicensed, this would require waiting until the work is in the public domain in every country worldwide. This definition is as far as I can tell not used by any Wikimedia project.
The policy wmf:Resolution:Licensing policy differs from that point of view in that it mainly asks you to make sure that the content complies with the countries where it is most likely to be used, and this is probably also the most useful way of defining "free". However, wmf:Resolution:Licensing policy also contains another problem: you can't use content if the content isn't permitted according to US law, due to the server location. I think that one problem comes from the idea of hosting all projects in the same country and that it would be better to place different projects in different countries so that you can scrap the requirement on following US law and only follow the laws of the countries where the data mainly is used (but it's still good if you can avoid problems such as golden shields so that the content at least can be accessed from elsewhere). However, I realise that it would probably be very expensive to host the different projects in lots of different countries.
Swedish Wikipedia is mainly used in Sweden and Finland, and users of Swedish Wikipedia will mainly be concerned about Swedish and Finnish laws, so it would be better from a legal point of view to move the data to Sweden or Finland and scrap the restrictions on following US law (thereby circumventing problems such as different copyright terms). On the other hand, English Wikipedia is mainly accessed in English-language countries, and not in Sweden. If you were to move English Wikipedia to Sweden, you would have to delete the vast majority of all fair use images from the Internet version of English Wikipedia (but you would be able to keep lots of the images in paper copies of the project), so it is better to keep hosting English Wikipedia in the United States, or move the project to some other English-language country.
For a project like Commons, I think that the ideal country would be a country which observes the rule of the shorter term and freedom of panorama and doesn't have too huge limitations on freedom of speech. I'm not sure where that would be. {{PD-Art}} does not work in Sweden for photos taken after 1968, so moving Commons to Sweden would require deleting lots of photos of ancient paintings, which lots of Commons users probably would oppose. --Stefan4 (talk) 14:05, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
The rule (though unclear on which legal basis) seems to be that whichever state legally gets the territory of a "dead" state, gets to apply its copyright law. From [23] "German unification provides a modern day example of a copyright recapture provision. Because a 20-year difference in the copyright term under the West and East German law, upon unification in 1990, retroactive protection was extended to East German works." Someone not using his real name (talk) 02:05, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
Copyright rules for dead states are strange, and I don't know whether Commons always does the right thing. International law sometimes defines a successor state, and in that case, Commons seems to consider the successor state as the source country. If international law defines no successor state, Commons seems to require that the copyright has expired according to the most recent copyright law of the defunct country. East Germany has a successor state (West Germany), but the Russian Empire doesn't have any successor state (at least not according to the Russian Federation). There are some things here which I find very confusing:
The template {{PD-Ottoman Empire}} requires that the copyright has expired in the Ottoman Empire. However, the Ottoman Empire doesn't exist, and as far as I can tell, the copyright law of Turkey (a major part of the Ottoman Empire) pays no attention to the copyright status in the Ottoman Empire. The same problem possibly also applies to other parts of the Ottoman Empire.
According to the w:Copyright Duration Directive, the European Union appears to use the rule of the shorter term on works made by Russian citizens but not on works made by Estonian citizens. Same problem with Yugoslavia, the Ottoman Empire and the Russian Empire: the rule of the shorter term applies to citizens of non-EU countries but not to citizens of EU countries. I think that what matters was the citizenship when the work was created, not the citizenship of today. How do you tell if a Soviet citizen counts as an Estonian citizen or as a Russian citizen?
Yugoslavia had freedom of panorama, but some parts of Yugoslavia have since abolished this. If a photo was taken and published in Yugoslavia, do we then use the freedom of panorama rules of Yugoslavia or the freedom of panorama rules of the country where the building is located for the moment? Same problem with the Government-General of Chōsen: the ruling state (Japan) has FOP for buildings but not for artworks, South Korea has no FOP at all and North Korea has full FOP. If someone took a photo of a statue in Heijō and a photo of a building in Keijō in 1940, and the sculptor and architect both died in 1970, do we delete the statue and keep the building (citing COM:FOP#Japan), or do we delete the building and keep the statue (citing COM:FOP#Korea (South) and COM:FOP#Korea (North))? This is all too unclear to me. --Stefan4 (talk) 13:23, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
Successor state for the place where the work is published is not the whole story. Under US case law, the country's legislation to be used for judging ownership of copyright (c.f. en:Itar-Tass Russian News Agency v. Russian Kurier, Inc.) is determined by the following: "Copyright is a form of property, and the usual rule is that the interests of the parties in property are determined by the law of the state with “the most significant relationship” to the property and the parties." I don't know of any case of applying the law of defunct states in US lawsuits, but that test sounds like it doesn't require formal international recognition of state successorship, which by the way, may be more than one; see the case of China/Taiwan or Austria-Hungary. (Even with the loss of international recognition of Taiwan, I doubt a US court would apply the law of the PRC to a dispute involving copyright ownwership between some Taiwanese.) The last part used in the US test ("and the parties") clearly implies that citizenship of the authors is also taken into account. The proposal to consider everything made in the Ottoman Empire or in the Russian Empire as out of copyright in the country with the "most significant relationship" to the work and its authors, would have a questionable outcome under an actual court of law in the US in view of the latter, though this hasn't been actually tested, as far as I know. Someone not using his real name (talk) 23:36, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
As an aside, PD-OttomanEmpire says "the copyright term (30 years after the death of the author, sometimes less) expired before the Empire was dissolved" which is a weaker claim than saying everything published in the Empire before it was dissolved is now PD. This weaker claim might still be wrong though if later Turkish laws extended copyright retroactively, but I don't know anything about that. Well, that's the theory, in practice 99% of the photos in Category:PD-Ottoman have unknown authors, so it amounts to the same thing... Someone not using his real name (talk) 00:16, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
The country with the most significant relationship is something only defined in USA law (I think). I don't know if this matters here. w:Itar-Tass Russian News Agency v. Russian Kurier, Inc. is more about determining the copyright holder to a work and not whether it is copyrighted in the first place.
If a work by a Russian Empire citizen residing in the Russian Empire was first published within the Russian Empire, then it automatically entered the public domain in USA due to lack of copyright treaties. In order to determine the current copyright status in USA, you would have to determine the source country (see s:United States Code/Title 17/Chapter 1/Section 104A#(h) Definitions) and then use that to determine whether URAA has restored the copyright. All works published in the Russian Empire do of course satisfy {{PD-1923}}, but the USA question is relevant for other countries.
On Commons, I think we use the Berne Convention definition of the source country. I don't know what Commons would do if different countries disagree on how the Berne Convention defines the source country for any particular work. The Republic of China is not a signatory to the Berne Convention (see File:Berne Convention signatories.svg). I think that this means that if a work is first published in the Republic of China, but the author is a citizen or resident of the People's Republic of China, then the source country is the People's Republic of China. As far as I have understood, the People's Republic of China claims all citizens of the Republic of China as their own citizens. --Stefan4 (talk) 00:33, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
I have converted the list into a gallery so that I can get a better overview of the images. I think that a few of them can stay per COM:DM but that most will have to be deleted. --Stefan4 (talk) 22:27, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
The photos are messy. The black and white ones are all in the public domain in Japan per {{PD-Japan-oldphoto}}, but I'm questioning whether Japan really is the source country for all of them. I was able to clean up several photos but asked the user about two of them. One may be American and one may be German. --Stefan4 (talk) 22:14, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
We need to know the original publication to know that any of them are Japan old-photo. Who's to say they weren't published abroad first? That's the reason why we require a source for every image. And "old photo" is not a source at all. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 22:32, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
It seems that many of the photos must have been taken in Japan. For example, File:Takagi-jinzaburou1.jpeg shows a person (ja:高木甚三郎) who lived in Japan. We also have File:Osouf pierre marie.jpeg showing fr:Pierre-Marie Osouf, who seems to have lived most of his later life in Japan where he became the archbishop of Tokyo. It would seem that the photo either was taken in Japan or before the mid-1870s (although it says that the man spent a year in the US after that). If it was taken before the mid-1870s, then it should be in the public domain everywhere in the world.
I also agree that all files need a proper source, but that's not what people thought in the deletion discussion on Wikipedia. I'm currently in a dispute about a similar matter at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Aurora moored to the ice.jpg about a photo by an Australian photographer from the early 20th century which is sourced to a contemporary British book.
Also, may I recommend page archiving? The large size of your talk page is causing Mediawiki to take a long time to render the page, and it takes a long time to load it. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 22:24, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
verassing → verrassing
Thank you, Stefan4, for renaming these four files.
Three of them are not used; I remember that with certainty.
Unfortunately, the old file name (now a redirect) does not show in which countries it is used. I traced (and corrected) four of them, but from memory I would say there were more than four. If I had known that this information would disappear, I would have made a manual note of the references.
Can you find out which articles in which countries still refer to the wrong name? Or is that information destroyed even for administrators (or whatever) such as you?
Thanks for pointing out "Special:GlobalUsage" to me. Very useful. I did not know it existed.
You applied that function with File: prefix, and that seems to be the wrong way to do it. I applied the function without File: and it showed one remaining reference (which I repaired, of course).
OTRS tickets are normally added by OTRS members. If a {{PermissionOTRS}} tag is added by someone else, then this could mean that the tag is wrong, either intentionally or by mistake. For example, new users might copy sample code from another page and might not understand what the OTRS tag means and might therefore insert an unrelated OTRS tag for another file. I would assume that OTRS members regularly check the files tagged with "OTRS permission added by non-OTRS member" to see if something is wrong with them. If nothing is wrong with the OTRS ticket, then I would assume that nothing needs to be done. --Stefan4 (talk) 14:48, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
Ok that's great, thanks. As the ticket was a copy and paste I know it's the correct one so I've nothing to worry about. I won't be getting blocked because of it anyway. SonofSetanta (talk) 14:56, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
No longer valid?
I don't understand why this is not a valid target for a rename when the same argument was valid for the corresponding TIFF? Perhaps you can explain it to me instead of silently failing it? Maury Markowitz (talk) 12:17, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
Deletion request for files in Category:Logos of Eurovision that uses the Eurovision heart
Hello Stefan4,
As you have previously participated in a discussion regarding deletion Eurovision Song Contest logos, I would like to direct your attention to Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Logos of Eurovision, where a discussion regarding deletion of 79 logo files are taking place and I would also like to encourage you to participate in said discussion, so we may all benefit from what-ever knowledge and experience, you may have gained during the last discussion. In kind regards, --heb [TCE] 13:36, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
Hi Stefan4, as you seem to be Swedish-native, could you eventually ask at :sv-Wikipedia if there is some legal expertise about the copyright-status of x-ray images? --Túrelio (talk) 12:08, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
Adminship
Hey Stefan4, I know I've asked this question before, but am doing to ask it again, when do you think you will be ready for an RFA here on Commons? I think you'd make a fine admin, and are always active and ready to help editors, and have a sound knowledge of copyright issues, etc. What do you think? russavia (talk) 03:00, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
Uh oh. Once Russavia recommends someone for adminship, he won't let the matter go without a fight. In all seriousness, I think you would make a good administrator as well. Your humility fights against you, but I think it would be for the better. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 04:12, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
Declined per the law (1998:112) about responsibility for bulletin board systems and COM:PRP. Under the law, anyone who provides a bulletin board system is required to patrol it and delete material which violates various laws, for example copyright violations, hate speech and child pornography. Commons is a bulletin board system according to the Swedish law, despite the article w:Bulletin board system suggesting that a bulletin board system is something different.
Under the w:DMCA, the responsibility to remove copyright violations is held by the one who provides the hardware and Internet connection (for example the Wikimedia Foundation), but the Swedish law explicitly exempts people who only provide background infrastructure. See for example NJA 2007 p. 805 where the administrator of a website refused to remove hate speech. That person designed the website and is listed as owner of the domain name according to a w:WHOIS lookup, but it looks as if the server currently is located in Denmark, so it seems that the hardware & Internet connection are provided by someone else. A person had used the website's guest book section to post messages supporting execution of homosexuals due to their "sins" with reference to the Bible and to God. The court found that this administrator was responsible for removing material, but didn't charge him for violation of this law due to an exemption in the law: if you can be charged for violation of certain more serious laws, then you should be charged for violating those other laws instead.
Under the Swedish law, I suspect that Commons users with access to the delete button might be responsible for deleting obvious violations upon finding them or risk facing legal charges in Sweden. Commons hosts several files which violate the Swedish copyright law, for example most files in Category:PD Art and various works created by EU citizens but first published outside Sweden, for example most photos in Category:PD Italy (20 years after creation) taken since 1973. The rule of the shorter term doesn't apply to works made by EEA citizens.
The law only requires deletion of obvious violations, the reason for this being that sysops shouldn't have to make judgements about complex legal situations (see proposition 1997/98:15 p.17). Examples of non-obvious cases are probably photos in Category:PD Italy (20 years after creation) which were taken after 1968 but before 1973: Sweden was not yet part of the EEA when the copyright expired in Italy, so the copyright expired in Sweden at that point under the rule of the shorter term, and it's not clear if the copyright ever was restored. I also would suspect that a violation isn't obvious in a lot of cases where files are missing essential information, but that they would become obvious violations if the missing essential information is provided, in particular if the information is provided by posting it to my talk page. The Swedish law pays no attention to the server location.
Due to these legal concerns, I am not sure if it would be safe to have access to a delete button on a project which officially hosts material which is illegal in Sweden. --Stefan4 (talk) 14:58, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
This is a great time to rant about the inappropriateness of hate speech laws, how they usually become ways for people to force their political orthodoxy on everyone else. I could write a novel on your talk page about it, but won't. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 23:17, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
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!
I hoped that telling him to do it himself would help him finding out how to do if he ever needs to start an RfC again. --Stefan4 (talk) 14:18, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
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!
Hej! Jag lade upp en fråga på bybrunnen om upphovsrätt till reprofoton. På File:Lingonuppköpare.jpg har jag lagt till ett citat ur SOU 1956:25 som jag uppfattar avgör frågan om huruvida det finns något skydd för reprofoton i svensk rätt. Jag är intresserad av din uppfattning. Frågan gäller även skyddet för fotografiska kopior av text och ritningar enligt samma källa och sida. Vänligen Edaen (talk) 08:15, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
Nobody able "to upload the stone", everybody uploads only photos, drawings etc. If you are not agree let it discuss the question publicly, but please first to delete No license Sincerely Hunu (talk) 08:38, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
Curious to know why my picture was deleted, it was a photograph of something I own, taken by me. It wasn't very good anyway, I just want to know incase I upload any more photos in the future. Thanks NemesisAT (talk) 21:03, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
The manual wasn't created by you but by someone else. You can't take photos of other people's creations. The cube isn't protected by copyright, so it is fine to take photos of the cube. --Stefan4 (talk) 21:47, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
Can you please explain to me how casting a marker and planting it into the ground doesn't constitute "publication"? I don't see how that works.--GrapedApe (talk) 04:03, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
‘‘Publication’’ is the distribution of copies or phonorecords of a work to the public by sale or other transfer of ownership, or by rental, lease, or lending. The offering to distribute copies or phonorecords to a group of persons for purposes of further distribution, public performance, or public display, constitutes publication. A public performance or display of a work does not of itself constitute publication.
Copies of the markers have not been sold to the public, unless you can buy your own copy of the markers in a shop somewhere. Compare also with similar definitions in the Berne Convention and the Swedish copyright law:
(3) The expression "published works" means works published with the consent of their authors, whatever may be the means of manufacture of the copies, provided that the availability of such copies has been such as to satisfy the reasonable requirements of the public, having regard to the nature of the work. The performance of a dramatic, dramatico-musical, cinematographic or musical work, the public recitation of a literary work, the communication by wire or the broadcasting of literary or artistic works, the exhibition of a work of art and the construction of a work of architecture shall not constitute publication
Av utredningen i målet framgår att J.R. endast sålt fotografierna till Q houses och åtgärden att lägga ut dem på Q-houses webbsida är, som framgår ovan, att anse som överföring till allmänheten. Något som tyder på att hans avsikt med utläggandet har varit annat än att fullgöra sitt åtagande gentemot Q-houses är inte visat i målet. Under dessa omständigheter kan inte fotografierna anses utgivna i upphovsrättslagens mening.
In the Swedish court ruling, the court decided that two photos which had been uploaded to a website were "unpublished".
The definition of "publication" in the US law was added in 1978. Before that, the law didn't contain any definition of "publication", so the courts created their own definition. Under that definition, a work was typically "published" if it was possible for the general public to create copies of the work. There seem to be two court rulings which discuss this issue:
s:American Tobacco Co. v. Werckmeister: A painting was exhibited at a museum which was open to the general public, but photography was prohibited. As copies couldn't be created of the painting, the painting was unpublished.
Commons has so far assumed that the pre-1978 definition should be used for acts which occurred before 1978 and that the post-1977 definition should be used for acts which occurred after 1977. See also the page Commons:Public art and copyrights in the US which explains this in detail. --Stefan4 (talk) 12:44, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
Another DR regarding Australian content has been initiated on the basis of the Aboriginal flag case. As many of these are simple geometry on or below the same level as the Aboriginal flag, I would appreciate if you would add your opinion in the DR. Fry1989eh?04:18, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
As a first measure, I think that we should begin by categorising all Australian TOO-related deletion requests in a subcategory to Category:Threshold of originality related deletion requests. If we can later show that the application of the originality criterion "is out of line with the understanding of copyright law over many years" (High Court of Australia, 2009), it will be easier to find files to take to COM:UR.
I have found some interesting documents and court rulings, but they all relate to compilations and the exact impact on the originality for artistic works is unclear. I think that one very good example is the treatment of telephone directories: they were found to be copyrightable in one court ruling, but this was overturned some time after the IceTV v. Nine case. I think that I linked to those two telephone directory court rulings in a recent deletion request.
You get quite a lot of hits if you search for "IceTV" and "originality" on Google, but it is hard to extract the relevant information from the loads of hits. I have found some research by legal scholars ([24], [25]), which might be worth reading. I plan to comment on the deletion discussion you mentioned, but I would like to read more of the text in the documents I have found first. --Stefan4 (talk) 22:14, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
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!
I got your message about the file Bliss-Carman.gif in my e-mail. As I understand it, it has to do with a file I uploaded to Wikipedia two years ago. As you probably know, I am prevented from replying to you there, or from adding any information to the file's description page, even if I wanted to. However, since the .gif is identical to that of File:Bliss-carman-1916.gif File:Bliss-carman-1916.gif, which was added to Wikimedia Commons roughly a year ago, I don't think it's important enough to justify the time already spent on it. Delete it if you feel like it. George Dance (talk) 06:30, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
This seems to be about w:File:Bliss-carman.gif. The file was deleted by User:Diannaa as unsourced. This probably means that you failed to specify where the image came from, making it impossible to determine the copyright status of the image. If it is the same photo as File:Bliss-carman-1916.gif, it could in principle be restored, but if it is too similar, it would not be worth the trouble to do so. --Stefan4 (talk) 18:51, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
Agreed; the two files are identical, so there's no loss in deleting the one without source information. My main reason for writing you was to let you know that I can't reply on Wikipedia to messages posted on my talk page there. My page here is fine, at least for now. George Dance (talk) 20:23, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
Deletion requests/Files on File:Bus carrying evacuees into the United States Embassy in Saigon 29 April 1975.jpg
Thanks for your message. I have no idea what Corbis photo or Flickrwashing means, but I can made an explanation for uploading two photos. First, I uploaded the former file, but didn't see the photo showed up and wondering whether it was a failure, so I made the second upload of the latter, not knowing that the Flickr upload bot didn't finish its work for the former. After learning the mistake, I put a template, {{Delete}}, on the latter and ask for deletion. It is not a duplicate of the former file. Second, on the lower right of the original file page on Flickr is a link to this page, seems that it match the condition of "Some rights reserved", which is allowed to be uploaded to Wikimedia.
Can you give me a direct link to administrative/law regulations, that say it is forbidden to take photos of coins? Please respond here... --Chepry (talk) 15:57, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
It is not permitted to take photos of copyrighted artworks unless an exception is listed in the copyright law and coins are artworks. Unfortunately, no exception appears to exist for euro coins. --Stefan4 (talk) 16:09, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
Hi. Can you please explain what makes you believe this image is a copyright violation? It is clearly labeled as public domain [26]. Please also note that the speedy deletion tag has a note on it which states that "if you think that the file does not meet the criteria for speedy deletion, please explain why on its talk page and remove this tag." I have left such a note on the file's talk page. Regards, Middayexpress (talk) 16:25, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
Replied on the file talk page. I'm not sure why the {{Copyvio}} tag recommends people to remove the tag. That risks causing lots of problems. The usual solution is to convert the tag into a deletion discussion instead. --Stefan4 (talk) 16:32, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
Yeah, that seems a better solution. Can you please convert it, as I'm not sure how to? I've left a response on the talk page. Regards, Middayexpress (talk) 16:53, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
Hm, yes, I must have overlooked that. Was the image created by that website, or did the website use another image from some unknown source? It looks as if this might be some kind of official photo which the website obtained from the interviewed person - but I suppose that probably just would make it {{PD-USGov}} instead... --Stefan4 (talk) 09:41, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
I took both images from wikimedia, put them together, so I cannot see how there could be a copyright violation! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Susanna.kaukinen (talk • contribs) 2013-12-04T21:09:08 (CET) (UTC)
Lots of Wikipedia projects host non-free images for various reasons, for example for use under the conditions listed in articles 22-25 of the copyright law. That an image is hosted on Wikipedia is no evidence that it is free. --Stefan4 (talk) 13:46, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
Hi, Stefan4. As I've mentioned under the picture, I have contacted the organizer. They not only allowed me to use their logo, they have also sent me the logo. Should I copy the email conversation somewhere or what should I do to keep the picture? Thanks. SonCZ. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SonCZ (talk • contribs) 2013-12-04T22:52:25 (CET) (UTC)
Was ist denn an der Einstellung von Münzen aus meinem Privateigentum auszusetzen? Wenn dies die Gemeinschaft nicht wünscht, werde ich mir zukünftig die Arbeit sparen und keinen Beitrag mehr leisten. — Preceding unsigned comment added by D.j.mueller (talk • contribs) 2013-12-08T21:15:44 (CET) (UTC)
You did not make the coins yourself. Someone else, normally an engraver working for a central bank, designed the coins. Depending on the country, you will have to ask either the engraver or the central bank for permission. If the coin is very old, then the copyright has expired. For example, you can upload photos of any 18th century coin, but some 19th century coins and many 20th and 21st century coins can't be uploaded. You can find specific information about different countries at Commons:Currency. --Stefan4 (talk) 00:05, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
Das ist ein praxisfremder Ansatz "you will have to ask either the engraver or the central bank for permission." Wie soll ich als einfacher Bürger eine juristisch belastbare Antwort erhalten und wie soll ich diese juristisch belastbar Euch überbringen? Eine einfache E-Mail-Antwort reicht da nicht... Da bin ich Monate beschäftigt mit administrativen Vorlauf nur um ein einziges Foto hochzuladen.
Ich kann verstehen, dass das Urheberrecht in der USA anders juristisch definiert ist als in Deutschland. Aber Wochen/Jahre später Löschanträge zu stellen demotiviert jeden Autor. Wenn Du Dich als Lösch-User in Commons weiter positiv betätigen willst, so solltest Du dafür mitsorgen, dass die Fotos nicht einfach gelöscht werden, sondern zunächst nur auf non-public umgestellt werden und dann ein Offizieller der Wikimedia Foundation sich um die entsprechenden Dokumente für die Lizenzierung kümmert beim jeweiligen Urheber. Die Wikimedia Foundation und ihre Länder-Vertretungen haben inzwischen so viel Geld für Festangestellte, die könnten dann neben Betrieb und Öffentlichkeitsarbeit, sich auch um das besorgen von Foto-Lizensierung kümmern. Das gewinnen von neuen Wiki-Autoren ist so mühselig und schwierig, da sollte man die bestehenden Wiki-Autoren nicht demotivieren.
Sorry, but it is the responsibility of the uploaders to make sure that the images have a valid copyright tag and that all permissions are in place. It is unfortunate that some copyright violations remain on Commons for several years, but that is sometimes the case if a problem file isn't discovered until much later. --Stefan4 (talk) 23:25, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
Diverse LA für Orden staatlicher Stellen, wie BRD und DDR
Stefan, gibts denn wirklich keine produktivere Aufgabe, die du hier in Commons erledigen könntest? Ich bin wie viele andere auch des Diskutierens müde. Irgendwann wirds auch hier in commons nur noch Trolle und Löschantragssteller geben, aber keinen mehr, der sinnvollen Content bringt. Schade eigentlich. --Ordercrazy (talk) 16:09, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
The problem is that it seems that your father merely received the medals, but that someone else designed them. We need permission from the engraver. --Stefan4 (talk) 23:28, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
Das sind Auszeichnungen staatlicher Institutionen, wie Präsident der Deutschen Demokratischen Republik, Präsident der Bundesrepublik Deutschland, Präsidenten in- und ausländischer Universitäten und so weiter. Sowohl die Präsidenten als auch die Hersteller sind bereits sehr lange tot, teils mehr als 70 Jahre. Ich erstellte die Fotos und habe deshalb die Urheberrechte an den Fotos. Freundlicherweise lud ich diese Fotos nach Commons, um zur Bebilderung vieler Artikel in der Wikipedia in sehr vielen Sprachversionen beizutragen, wie zum Beispiel Nationalpreis der DDR und Max-Planck-Medaille. Außerdem half ich bei der Bebilderung der Artikel vieler Nobelpreisträger. Soll das alles verloren gehen? Soll die Wikipedia langsam aber sicher sterben. Soll ich den Erfinder der Wikipedia anschreiben, denn dieser lebt noch und war auch mal in Bayern, meiner früheren Heimat, zu Besuch. Der Bundespräsident, der meinem Vater 1965 das Große Verdienstkreuz der Bundesrepublik Deutschland verlieh, lebt nicht mehr. Den derzeitigen Bundespräsidenten möchte ich nicht mit Deinen Problemen belästigen. --GFHund (talk) 07:06, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
Siehe die Diskussionsseiten der 15 betroffenen Medaillen. Ürigens wurde der Nationalpreis vor Gründung der DDR an meinen Vater verliehen und ist ein amtliches Werk der Regierung der früheren Ostzone. Außerdem schaltete ich meine Rechtsanwälte ein. --GFHund (talk) 11:04, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
Heute hat ein Bot sämtliche Bilder gelöscht und aus den Artikeln entfernt. Sehr schade für die Wikipedia, die jetzt wohl allmählich restlos zerststört werden wird. --GFHund (talk) 14:42, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
User:Jameslwoodward, who deleted the files, is not a bot, but a normal user like you and me. Upon deletion, the images were probably removed from all Wikipedia articles by a bot, but that is a separate matter. --Stefan4 (talk) 14:54, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
Texas Forts Trail
Sefan,
I have an email with permission from the director of the Texas Forts Trail stating that I have permission to post the logo for that company. Is this grounds for undeleting the logo uploaded? How do I go about this?Flofor15 (talk) 15:00, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
If the permission only is for uploading the image to Commons, then the permission is insufficient. If the permission is sufficient, send it to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org. If the permission is sufficient, this should lead to restoration of the file. --Stefan4 (talk) 15:04, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
Danke für den Hinweis, allerdings habe ich keine Unterlagen zum Urheber bzw. Rechteinhaber. Dies war ein Werbeplakat für die Tour sowie Auftritte und diente gleichzeitig als Autogramm-Karte, deswegen bin ich mir nicht sicher wie es sich in einem solchen Fall mit dem Urheberrecht verhält, oder ob überhaupt eines besteht. Falls Sie der Meinung sind, es könnte gegen ein Urheberrecht verstoßen, dann bitte ich Sie, dass das Bild aus dem Commons zu entfernen. Beide Bilder entstammen dem privaten Archiv bzw. Nachlass von Henri Kassagi. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SaProgéniture (talk • contribs) 2013-12-13T21:15:00 (UTC)
Toutes les photographies sont protégées par droit d'auteur pendant au moins 70 ans. Selon fr:Henri Kassagi, Kassagi est né en 1932, et donc on sait que File:Henri et colombes.jpg a été prise après 1942. La photographie est protégée par droit d'auteur et il faut contacter le photographe pour l'autorisation. --Stefan4 (talk) 00:01, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
You are harming wp:commons!
Stefan, please understand, that it is your responsibility that authors leave WP-projects. You and a few others are harming WP & commons with mass-deletion-requests more than any possibly copyrighted image ever could. I promise: One of us will leave here soon. --Ordercrazy (talk) 07:11, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
PS Y si quieres borrar todas las demas imágenes de monedas, cojonudo. I si vols esborrar totes les altres imatges de monedes, collonut. And if you were so kind as to erase all other images of coins, I would be delighted.
A barnstar for you!
The Original Barnstar
Je suis l'auteur avec les 2 productions Lardux Films et Zorobabel de cette affiche que vous avez supprimée sur la page commons Louise Lemoine Torrès. Il s'agit de notre film...
Comment faire pour l'apposer sur la page Louise Lemoine Torrès ?
Hi Stefan4, you asked for the deletion of some coins that I uploaded. Why is it not legal to photograph (by myself) a coin of the 17th century (the engraver should be long dead) and upload it? What if I took the picture of the coin out of a book from the 19th century, so the photographer and the encraver a long gone? Thanks for any clarification on this mattter.--Linear77 (talk) 19:58, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
The coins you uploaded photos of are from Germany. In Germany, the copyright expires 70 years after the death of the photographer (or 70 years after publication if the photographer is anonymous). If you can show that the photographer who took the photos in the book died more than 70 years ago, then the images can be uploaded. --Stefan4 (talk) 13:36, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
The book was published in 1888. It will be tricky to figure out if a photographer of 1888 still lived in 1944 (70 years ago). Nevertheless, thank you again for the clarification.--141.30.123.1615:12, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
Hello Stefan4,
Thank you for the message. However I'd like to understand how does the file:Beiqi Foton Motor logo.png violate wikipedia commons rights? I work for Foton company, my boss gave me the logo and asked me to update it on Wikipedia, the file belongs to us and we'd like to share it on commons. Please give me more information to succeed the file upload. Many thanks Shan (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 2013-12-19T03:55:25 (UTC)
Most logos are copyrighted and can't be uploaded here. If the company is willing to license the photograph, then please follow the instructions at COM:OTRS. --Stefan4 (talk) 15:11, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
Autorisations de réutilisation du fichier File:Coin BE 40F Leopold I rev A1.TIF
Bonjour,
Suite à votre message, j'ai envoyé un e-mail à 'permissions-commons-fr@wikimedia.org', ce lundi 16, afin de demander l'avis sur une adaptation du texte que je comptais demander aux ayants-droits, vu la caractéristique spécifique (puisqu'il s'agit de près de 400 photos de pièces de monnaie que je compte introduire et que c'est une institution, la Monnaie royale de Belgique, qui détient les droits et non une personne physique). Je n'ai pas encore reçu de réponse. Voyant la date butoir pour le suppression des fichiers approcher, j'ai, à présent, envoyé une demande à la Monnaie royale mais puis-je demander votre clémence par rapport à cette suppression. L'introduction des photos sur Commons m'ont pris pas mal de temps, vu que je les ai accompagnées de descriptions dans 4 langues. Et vu qu'on approche des fêtes, 7 jours, c'est très court. Je ne suis vraiment pas sûr d'obtenir une réponse si rapide. Merci d'avance. Et déjà de joyeuses fêtes. --Delsaut (talk) 23:04, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
Hi Stefan! You tagged a recent upload of mine for deletion without further comment or clarification. I responded to your tagging within a few hours, only to find the file deleted now, less than 12 hours later, apparently by another admin, again without comment or clarification or any sign that my clarification has been acknowledged. See Commons:Undeletion requests/Current requests#File:Ambilogo.svg. This is really not productive behaviour. I don't envy you guys for the amount of garbage you have to wade through daily, but shooting down content at random is no way to ease the pain.--Nettings (talk) 10:23, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
You shouldn't mix up copyright with trademarks. Apparently, a user undeleted the file without considering the source country, so the file is now up for deletion again. The previous deletion was at a time when I wasn't around, so I didn't see your complaint until after the file had been deleted. --Stefan4 (talk) 14:06, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
Stefan, you have now nominated a bunch of other files which I have just uploaded for deletion. Sorry, but this totally does not work for me and I will refuse to contribute to Wikimedia commons in the future, if your behaviour is the officially sanctioned one. I do not question your argument about trademark vs. copyright. What I miss is the assumption of goodwill that is fundamental to Wikipedia, and a constructive attitude to resolving such problems, rather than just deleting stuff on very short notice. The Ambisonic logo in question is used as intended by the former trademark holder, with proper attribution. And if there is indeed a problem in the future, the file can be deleted then. I don't see why I should waste my time with excessive self-censorship if there is no problem. The fact that it is an expired trademark does indicate that it is _very_ unlikely that there will be any claims from any potential copyright holder. I was unable to even find out who the copyright holder is. I had meant to upload it to wikipedia as fair use (which I've in fact done just now), but was directed to Wikimedia Commons by a nag screen, to make it available under less restrictive terms. I had no idea how much of a PITA this was going to be.
As to the spherical harmonics illustrations, I have personally requested permission from the author (who is a personal acquaintance and respected colleague) to upload them to Commons as CC-BY-SA, which he has granted. I just wanted to save him the work of uploading it himself. If you don't trust me with this, how can you assume I wouldn't just send you a fake email as proof? What is this all about? I even gave his contact email. Anybody who disputes the validity of my statement can just write to him and verify.
I appreciate being educated about copyright issues, but I'm not wasting my time with wannabe copyright lawyers when all I want to do is get an article done, and properly illustrated. What I will do now is add the files as non-free, as a scientific quotation. I won't even bother to argue that they are a generic depiction that is almost certainly not copyrightable. Everyone loses. Please get some perspective, and please, pretty please, Wikimedia Commons, fix your procedures, because they are broken. I'm outta here.--80.139.155.5502:00, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
Sorry, there seems to be a problem with my login cookie from Wikipedia. I hadn't meant the above comment to be anonymous. --Nettings (talk) 02:05, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
The rules of Commons (which happen to be identical to those of Wikipedia) are very simple: it is the uploader's responsibility to ensure that the images are free to use, see COM:EVIDENCE. If an image has been used outside Commons before it was uploaded here (as is the case with the logo image), or if the image was uploaded by someone other than the copyright holder (as was the case with the other nominated images), then the copyright holder has to send in evidence that the file is freely licensed per the instructions at COM:OTRS. --Stefan4 (talk) 10:41, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
I have no problem with these rules. I was just irritated to see how people here apparently care more about metadata than about the content itself, or what it is used for. If you want to send a message to new users that there is a problem with a good-faith contribution, nominating it for deletion is a weird thing to do. That's what I mean by fix your procedures (not you personally, Commons as a whole). I was also caught unawares how rigid the copyright testing is - like you say, I thought it my responsibility to vouch for it, but my word was not accepted. Being a long-time open content person myself, I had assumed that if an upload is tagged as such, with some informal evidence, that would be taken at face value, so I was really surprised at the reactions (as in, assume good will, have trust, and whatnot). Having templates thrown at you without any individual consideration of the case does appear hostile, and seeing your stuff deleted while you are looking for clarification, even more so. I can see how templates are necessary to some degree to deal with the workload, but it just sucks if you're on the receiving end of a raging bunch of law-and-order metapedians (again, this is not directed at you personally, it just recalled old unpleasantries I'd been through before). It's a bit of an armed stand-off: those that can quote the most policy items win, and they spend day and night honing their arsenal...--Nettings (talk) 11:09, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
Hi, this picture represents the logo of Al-Hussein Bin Talal University, we need this picture to use it in the Wikipedia education program. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nidal.yousef (talk • contribs) 2013-12-21T14:37:47 (UTC)
There is no evidence that the logo is available under a free licence. If it is available under a free licence for some reason, then you will need to ask the copyright holder to follow the instructions at COM:OTRS. --Stefan4 (talk) 14:41, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
Unlike you, I actually have a life outside of this, and this means I will step away from the computer from time to time. If a 8 minutes' delay is not acceptable to you, then go notify the uploader yourself. Furthermore, there is no policy that obligates me, or anyone else to leave such notifications. I'll take my time now, thanks -FASTILY00:27, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
Sorry about that. However, do notice that the {{No permission since}} template tells that "Unless permission is granted, the file may be deleted seven days after this template was added and the uploader was notified". That is, deletion can't take place until at the earliest seven days after the uploader has been notified, essentially making notification mandatory. --Stefan4 (talk) 22:21, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
Hi Stefan4, re the revert of File:Image-request.png, I'm trying to sync it with the latest version on Wikipedia w:File:Image-request.png to complete a previously attempted and failed Commons move. Given there are links to both I would appreciate your thoughts on the best way to resolve this. Upload the Wikipedia version under a new name in Commons perhaps? Cube00 (talk) 18:48, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
I think that it is better to get the file split in two. See {{Split}}. The other image is used on lots of pages on Japanese Wikipedia and also on other projects, and those projects might not be happy if the file is overwritten by a vastly different file. --Stefan4 (talk) 22:17, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
Regarding deletion of Category:Krugerrand and it's contents
A snarky pun calling Bitcoin "Dunning-Krugerrands" (Dunning–Kruger effect + Krugerrand) led me to take a glance at en:Wikipedia's Krugerrand article. I was a bit surprised to find it devoid of images as coin articles generally have at least an opening infobox image.
I'm curious, does this mean that in fact many—if not all—modern era coin images are to be disallowed in Commons? Or is there something unique about South African coins which makes them inappropriate?
Ah, I've done a bit of web research and now think I've answered my own question. I'm a U.S. resident and as such am used to most stuff put out by the government being in the public domain. Apparently this is not the case in South Africa where state retention of copyright seems to be the norm unless specifically excepted.
I've looked at some other South African coin images used in en:Wikipedia articles (examples: A, B, C) and noticed that they're hosted on en:Wikipedia—rather than Commons—and include 'non-free use rationales'.
I'd like to suggest that perhaps in the future—as a friendly courtesy—you might take a moment to post copies of a brief notification to the talk pages of articles affected when proposing deletion of images which are actively in use. This would allow Wikipedia editors an opportunity to anticipate the change in advance rather than respond after the fact.
In some cases it may be appropriate to simply host a copy of a file proposed for deletion from Commons on the relevant Wikipedia(s) in which it is used and add a relevant non-free use rationale. Image resolution may be reduced as needed (perhaps via one of the Graphic Lab/Photography Workshops). This would maintain continuity in the relevant articles and save article editors the effort of 'starting from scratch' to acquire, adapt, and upload new images. A courtesy notice on relevant talk pages would at least allow an opportunity for this to happen. Or, if the editor proposing deletion was feeling particularly benevolent, they might just go ahead and make the change themselves while they had the relevant file(s) at hand.
Copyright laws differ from country to country. Some coins are accepted, some are not. See COM:CUR for an explanation of the situation in many countries. For example, in many European countries, you will have to wait until the engraver has been dead for at least 70 years before a photo of the coin can be uploaded here.
Uploading unfree coin images to Wikipedia would be against my country's copyright law, so that would pose legal risks for me. I also can't keep track of the fair use policies of all different Wikipedia projects. I think that there used to be a bot which placed notifications on Wikipedia talk pages, but that bot seems no longer to be working. --Stefan4 (talk) 22:30, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
A barnstar for you!
The Original Barnstar
Dear Stefan! Could you please help me out with the page "Global Medical Aid" - I am a neutral user that wishes to raise awareness about this great organization... It really saves lives - Why is there still a issue with the page?
Egzemplarz służbowy przepisów porządkowych i taryfowych Kolei Dolnośląskich.jpg
Hello.
According to Your notification, I'd like to example something.
On the photo there is not a book.
It's only kind of file cabinet for polish law (acts and regulations) connected with rail transport in Koleje Dolnoslaskie, and according to polish law (Ustawa o Prawie Autorskim) is into Public Domain!
It's part of accessories of railway workers in polish rail company Koleje Dolnoslaskie. This thing don't have any barcodes, ISSN, etc.
For several years now admins have been quickly approving the speedy deletion requests that have been made by the editors who are curating the BSicon files. Except in the very rare instance of a file being incorrectly tagged, there has not been a problem until now. However, your insistence on changing {{Speedydelete}} to {{Delete}} is obstructing and considerably delaying the process. Useddenim (talk) 18:56, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
Why do you think that conversion of invalid {{Speedy}} tags to {{Delete}} is disruptive? COM:CSD doesn't list any situations under which redirects may be speedily deleted. What is disruptive is that some users add invalid {{Speedy}} tags to pages without first checking whether there is a valid speedy deletion criterion. --Stefan4 (talk) 18:59, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
That criterion requires that the redirect is both unused and implausible. It is not sufficient if the redirect only is unused, or if it only is implausible. I'm not sure in which way these redirects are implausible. However, I realise that I overlooked that point. --Stefan4 (talk) 19:19, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
On implausibility: you can rely on us. Plausible BSredirects are collected at Category:Icons for railway descriptions/redirect. On unusedness: the majority of remaining usage are auto-filling tables, which should show a red link (or nothing) in those cases. The rest of usage are either user sandboxes (which I only rarely update; in ja.wp it is forbidden; but mostly they are long abandoned, so save me...), or project discussions, which should not be changed for history's sake. If you encounter anything in mainspace or templates – please notify us and remove the speedy tag! Unless it says that some other file should be moved there or something. YLSS (talk) 19:40, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
(ec) If you think that I have never read COM:CSD, you are gravely mistaken. The relevant criterion is G6: "Uncontroversial maintenance"; to get a more eloquent reasoning, please read Talk:BSicon/Renaming (with four archives and three subpages), Talk:BSicon/Colors (with one archive), possibly some other pages here, en:Wikipedia talk:Route diagram template (with eight archives and several subpages), and some discussion at de.wp (I can't provide links, unfortunately). Also, in [27], I guess by "lately" you mean last 12 months, and by "User:YLSS" you mean some dozen users dealing (now or in past) with BSicons? And really, consider creating umbrella nominations. YLSS (talk) 19:17, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
estimada Stefan4:
File:Knowmad.jpg is licensed under a Creative Commons. You can see in http://aprendizajeinvisible.com
No manejo el inglés por lo que te escribo en español.
tengo claro que solo pueden subirse imágenes con licencia libre en commons: la imagen que borraste está incluida en el libro publicado Aprendizaje Invisible by http://aprendizajeinvisible.com is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 3.0 Spain License. Lo más importante es, justamente que el tema es la liberación del conocimiento por lo que el autor expresamente indica que toda su obra puede ser usada, modificada, remisada. Te sugiero que lo mires para comprender el espíritu del libro y mi idea de que se conozca esta obra tan acorde al espíritu de WP. Por lo tanto te pido que deshagas el borrado de la imagen
" el formato, soporte y licencia de la Collección Transmedia XXI (Laboratorio de Mitjans Interactius [LMI], Universitat de Barcelona)
están pensados de antemano para favorecer tanto como se pueda su multiplicación, diversificación y transformación en tantos medios
y lenguajes como lo permita la imaginación.
Esto también significa que invitamos al lector a copiar, pegar y remezclar (remix) las ideas de este texto con nuevas y creativas perspectivas.
También se invita a los interesados a compartir su trabajo e inquietudes en el espacio de diálogo abierto que hemos creado en
www.aprendizajeinvisible.com o cualquier otro canal que se estimemás adecuado."
Creo que es una autorización expresa de los autores para utilizar el contenido de su libro libremente. Por eso tomé la imagen. saludos--Mevrob (talk) 16:06, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
Garage Voices deletion
Hi!
Sorry for violating Wikimedia Commons politics, it was not my intention. This album cover was created by a friend of mine (Fábio Costa), who unfortunately passed away before I could ask him to add this album cover himself. This was an important album for him, because it was the result of a lot of labour, and also for the independent music scene on Rio de Janeiro. All the bands involved are proud of their work an it should be represented in some way. What is the right way of including this artwork on Wikimedia Commons?
Best, --Sigried (talk) 12:12, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
Dear Sir,
This file was deleted before I could comment your decision. In the meantime, I had spoken to the author and copyright owner of the publication "La Chambre Rouge", Mr. Bruno Montpied, who sent today his authorization to Wikipedia, with a new photo of the same object (La Chambre Rouge n°2). I think the best thing to do now, instead of requesting an undeletion, is to send the same new document to Wikipedia ? Please tell me if I am right. Sincerely yours--Joiesoudaine (talk) 22:38, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
I am the copyright owner of the image, I would like to keep the smaller image for free use... I really do not understand CC license but would prefer that its used non-comercially and unaltered then and delete the larger one
Can you help with this??
I uploaded the file to commons and its duplicated there and attribution license so how is it we delete the others ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joefac3 (talk • contribs) 2014-01-30T04:10:29 (UTC)
if the image doesn't have the necessary paperwork or whatever it needs to use it and you understand what is needed can't you try and pursue what is needed rather than just see to it that the article gets the image taken away? seems destructive if you understand all the arcana not to try and resolve, and overcome, image problems rather than just look for a problem and then delete. if the CC- whatever doesn't mean we can use it , how do you get what it does need- and why don't you try and get what is needed? Sayerslle (talk) 15:28, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
Tashkent comment
Downtown TAshkent is my photo. I photographed this photo in 2011 year. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Guidecity (talk • contribs) 2014-02-04T14:16:00 (UTC)
Sorry. I don't understand. I added this photo several years ago. It photo was used on Uzbekistan and Tashkent section on wikipedia. Have you a problem? I really don't understand — Preceding unsigned comment added by Guidecity (talk • contribs) 2014-02-04T17:51:46 (UTC)
You are not the architect of that building. You will need permission from the architect to upload photographs of buildings in Uzbekistan. --Stefan4 (talk) 13:36, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
This is a new photo of Tashkent Downtown. This is a information's photo. You wanted to say me that all photos of wikipedia were photographed with a permission from architect. This is a nonsence. If I want to shoot skylines of Tashkent, Will I need permission from "million" architectors? Because, All building will be in my photo!!!!!!
I don't real understand. This is a nonsence. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Guidecity (talk • contribs) 2014-02-07T13:59:40 (UTC)
The architect holds the copyright to the bulding. You have to respect the copyright of the architect. That's the law. --Stefan4 (talk) 16:31, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
I haven't a received a answer on my question. If I want to shoot a photo of skylines, Will I need a copyright from a lot of architectors? Nonsense. You think about me as a criminal.
Show me please copyrights from all architects which built all building in New-York?
Photo made by User:Jleon. User Jlion took a copyrights from all architects of New York? You are joking
w:File:NYC Montage 2014 4 - Jleon.jpg shows buildings in the United States, so it is governed by the copyright law of the United States. Under the copyright law of the United States, there is no copyright to buildings completed before 1 December 1990 (see {{PD-US-architecture}}). Furthermore, the copyright law of the United States allows you to take photos of copyrighted buildings provided that the building "is located in or ordinarily visible from a public place." All of these buildings are ordinarily visible from a public place.
The situation in Uzbekistan is different, as explained at COM:FOP#Former Soviet Union. Under the copyright law of Uzbekistan, you can't use photographs of recent buildings commercially without permission from the architect, and the images are therefore not accepted on Commons without express permission from the architect. The situation is the same everywhere in the former Soviet Union with the exception of Armenia and Moldova, so it is presumably an old rule created by the Soviet Union.
In the event that you take a photo of a whole city (which contains lots of buildings), then the assumption is that permission from the architects isn't needed, unless the photograph specifically focuses on one of the buildings. However, you can't crop out individual buildings and upload those crops. I believe that this is based on a court ruling from France which said something like that. It is unknown whether the ruling is universally true in all countries of the world, but without any evidence of the contrary, Commons has assumed that this is the case. --Stefan4 (talk) 18:49, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
I photographed these photos several years ago. I spent a time for that. I don't know that wikipedia live with a kommunistic laws. Sorry. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Guidecity (talk • contribs) 2014-02-12T14:03:00 (UTC)
Sorry about that. The rule is that photos on Commons have to be free in both the United States and the source country, and in this case, the source country is Uzbekistan, where the photographs aren't free due to the architecture. Some copyright laws can be very annoying. For example, I recently found out about a court ruling in France where Getty Images was fined for hosting photographs of two different chairs in violation of the copyright of the chairs. Let's hope that we won't see as extreme examples in many other countries.
You may be able to host the images locally on some Wikipedia projects, at least if they are in use there. For example, English Wikipedia accepts photos like this if tagged with w:Template:FoP-USonly, and Russian Wikipedia sometimes also accepts images like this, although I don't know the exact rules for that. --Stefan4 (talk) 15:27, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
Please, Don't delete my photos. My photos are used a lot of section such as a Uzbekistan (on russian too), Tashkent, and a lot of section about hi-speed trains, stadiums and other. I didn't do something political.
Since you do quite a bit of deletion nominations, could I ask you to review the uploads of the above mentioned user? All seem to falsely claim his own authorship, and most of them seem to be outright copyright violations (Bukovac's painting is the only one that is certainly PD).
As the author of "Bloom Brothers Department Stores" entry I own the photograph entitled "1901, Samuel H. Bernstein Bloom, grayscale original.jpg" that you just tagged. I have reuploaded the file and added licensing information that liberates it from "non-free usage" label, which is and always was incorrect and unintended. I must have hit the wrong button when I uploaded the file and you are the first person to notice. This picture is freely releasted into the public domain as an historically accurate photograph of a deceased person that has never before been published. The studio and the person who snapped the photo are no longer in existence. Please email/message me (rbbloom@outlook.com) if you do not understand this message. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rbbloom (talk • contribs) 2014-02-06T15:40:56 (UTC)
Hi, About this file , you have placed deletion request . However, in the Flickr it was me to post. So i am the original copyright holder and I wanted to publish this in Wikipedia too. So isn't it valid ? Ashishlohorung (talk) 03:23, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
As the file was uploaded to Flickr almost a year before it was uploaded here, and as the licence on Flickr is unfree, I think that you should provide evidence to OTRS that the Flickr account belongs to you. Alternatively, you could change the licence on Flickr into something which is free. --Stefan4 (talk) 15:23, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for heads up on the different categories of the Commons licenses. I simply saw the 2.0, and did not realize there were different versions of that (generic vs. non-commercial). Will allow for that in the future. If you don't mind, is there a way I can delete photos I've added? Also, I uploaded another photo today (of the Chase Building). If you could verify that that one is okay, I'll know that I'm on the right track. I'll also use the tool you sent me for uploading from Flicker from now on. Again, thanks. Onel5969 (talk) 18:30, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
The unfree files seem to have been deleted, apart from one photograph where you failed to specify where the photograph comes from. --Stefan4 (talk) 23:51, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
FYI, some person from Korean Wikipedia asked Daum (Operator of Tistory) to clarify the license version. —레비Revi02:01, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
I hope that this is sorted out. It is very clear that the image is licensed under CC-BY, but I'm not sure how to review a file if I can't identify the version number, so I merely switched the {{Flickrreview}} template into a plain {{Licensereview}} template for someone else to review. --Stefan4 (talk) 13:32, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
The photos you looked had permission from the authors as long as they had attribution given to them. It is labeled all rights reserved on their pages but I messaged them for approval.
--Zfigueroa (talk) 05:07, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
Hello. I just wanted to point out a deletion discussion you started on 28 Jan. Since we both agree the files need deleting and nobody else has chimed in, I think it is high time to close the discussion and delete them. Green Giant (talk)00:42, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
What is taking the bot so long? I hoped that it would upload the full-size copy (which you later did), but the bot refused to do anything for several days and later told that it couldn't tell whether the image was the same. Oh well, let's give up on that. --Stefan4 (talk) 22:30, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
Foto di Daniele Radini Tedeschi
Hi Stefan4. I found the image in internet at the address I wrote in the description and I received from Daniele Radini Tedeschi ( the man in the photo) the permission (by email) to use it. What can I do ? Thanks--Ugo Bongarzoni (talk) 15:11, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
Hi Stefan4. I send permission archive the mail ( in Italian language)that Daniele Radini Tedeschi sent me to give me the permission to release his image and all photos of coverbooks he published under the license Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0.--Ugo Bongarzoni (talk) 02:00, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
Then we will have to wait until the OTRS users process this e-mail. I have removed the deletion tag for now. --Stefan4 (talk) 14:51, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
Bonjour Stefan,
Je suis un débutant en Wikipédia et j'ai essayé d'ajouter la copie d'un article comme preuve de ce que j'affirmais mais j'ai reçu le message suivant :
File:LE TELEGRAMME 16 11 12.jpg 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 find Commons:Copyright rules useful. You can ask questions about Commons policies in Commons:Help desk.
The file you added has been deleted. If you believe that the deletion was not in accordance with policy, you may request undeletion.
Wikimedia Commons takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.
Je comprends qu'il y a un problème de copyright.
Que dois-je faire ? Me contenter de donner la référence de l'article ? Essayer de trouver le lien sur le web ?
Que me conseillez-vous ?
Merci pour votre aide (I understand english, I'm even able to write you in english if you prefer but I'm more confortable in french, thanks),
--82.66.49.12416:09, 28 February 2014 (UTC)Yves Sobel
Il paraît que File:LE TELEGRAMME 16 11 12.jpg était une image d'un journal. Les journals sont protégés par droit d'auteur et il n'est pas possible importer des images des journals avant que les journalistes sont morts depuis au moins 70 ans. --Stefan4 (talk) 14:58, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
Suppression logo
Bonjour,
Vous m'avez supprimé mon logo "logo:vignobles bardet". Je voudrai savoir comment l'ajouter à nouveau sur wikipédia common car je travaille dans cette entreprise et elle est d'accord à mettre le logo sur wikipédia (l'entreprise à d'ailleur envoyé un mail à wikipédiapour accepter)
hi Stefan, I've uploaded some photos on Commons and you've listed them as bad license photos, I'm not so mush skillful in this item and I want you to help me in choosing correct licenses for them.
I hope that you're in good health. I hope that you don't feel alone in your struggles and hardships. Wikis can be harsh sometimes, especially when people make it their mission to ban or topic ban you. Cheer up, and don't feel scared or alone. Things will get better.
P.S. Ignore the timestamp. This message isn't a joke. Sincerely,
Hello, I just wanted to drop in and thank you for your nuanced and well-informed comments on licensing discussions. I appreciate your precision and attention to detail. --SJ+05:55, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
Hello, Stefan. I'm sorry to see you aren't around as much anymore. I know you kind of got chased away, which is a shame. I understand your pain; I've considered packing up and going before, but I've had people talk me down from the ledge.
Rather than viewing Commons with all its blemishes that will not get fixed, maybe you could view it as a way to spend your time that is fun. I view it that way, and it's the only way to stay sane around here. But it's totally worth it.
Your contributions here would be highly valuable, so please consider a return.
Regardless, if you come back some time soon, I'd love your input here.
At first, I thought that the image from 15 May 2007 was different to the one from 2005, but on a closer look, they seem to be different copies of the same photograph, so I suppose that it shouldn't be split. --Stefan4 (talk) 12:13, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
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!
About File:Liz Fuller new.jpg File:Liz wins Dream Girl in Taiwan.jpg File:Liz as Miss Wales GB.jpg
All this image are property of miss Liz Fuller, and the license are described under image description. If this is not enough than I can ask her to email license information to wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vishal1811 (talk • contribs) 2014-06-30T10:03:34 (UTC)
These do not look like self-shots, so there is no evidence that Liz Fuller is the copyright holder. The copyright holder (normally the photographer) should follow the procedure at COM:OTRS. --Stefan4 (talk) 12:13, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
See also: User talk:Jastrow#Centre Pompidou. 
Done, see the deletion discussion. --Stefan4 (talk) 14:36, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
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)
09:31, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
In all seriousness, I think you would make a good administrator as well. Your humility fights against you, but I think it would be for the better. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 04:12, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
Declined per the law (1998:112) about responsibility for bulletin board systems and COM:PRP. Under the law, anyone who provides a bulletin board system is required to patrol it and delete material which violates various laws, for example copyright violations, hate speech and child pornography. Commons is a bulletin board system according to the Swedish law, despite the article w:Bulletin board system suggesting that a bulletin board system is something different.
_plaque.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg,_File:Black_Point_Wildlife_Drive,_Merritt_Island_FL_-_Flickr_-_Rusty_Clark_(178).jpg_&_File:Bio_Lab_Road_-_Flickr_-_Rusty_Clark_(2).jpg){kind=link}
_01.JPG){kind=link}
.JPG){kind=link}
_AB.jpg){kind=link}
.svg){kind=link}
_réduit.jpg){kind=link}
_plaque.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_plaque.jpg){kind=link}
_plaque.jpg){kind=link}
_Corinne_Whitaker.jpg){kind=link}
![[3]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Lottemain.jpg&diff=prev&oldid=68744763){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.svg){kind=link}
![[6]](http://wikivoyage-old.org/shared/Image:Alonissos2.jpg){kind=link}
![[7]](http://wts.wikivoyage-old.org/wiki/File:Alonissos2.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
![[11]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Elephanthill.jpg&diff=84878636&oldid=84745171){kind=link}
![[13]](http://wikivoyage-old.org/shared/Image:Map_trains_cph.png){kind=link}
![[14]](http://wikivoyage-old.org/shared/Image:Map_trains_dk.png){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}
![[17]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Circling_1978-1987_by_Dejan_Stojanovic.jpg){kind=link}
![[18]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Krugovanje_by_Dejan_Stojanovi%C4%87_(Second_Edition).jpg){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}
![[22]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Chico-ca-1856.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg,_File:Black_Point_Wildlife_Dr){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
_01.JPG){kind=link}
_01.JPG){kind=link}
.JPG&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_cropped.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.JPG&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.JPG&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_cropped.jpg){kind=link}
_cropped.jpg){kind=link}
_IS_TESTED_AT_THE_DEPARTMENT_OF_TRANSPORTATION%27S_HIGH_SPEED_GROUND%E2%80%A6_-_NARA_-_545942.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.JPG&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.JPG){kind=link}
.JPG){kind=link}
_AB.jpg){kind=link}
![[26]](http://gdb.voanews.com/EA35F0AF-809A-42C0-A7C4-DEBEE14C30A8_w640_r1_s_cx1_cy7_cw98.jpg){kind=link}
.svg){kind=link}
.svg){kind=link}
Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to obstruct the file maintenance process, you may be blocked from editing. Thank you.
![[27]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Deletion_requests/File:BSicon_udKBHFre.svg&diff=114349873&oldid=114349651){kind=link}
_r%C3%A9duit.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_réduit.jpg){kind=link}
_réduit.jpg){kind=link}
![[28]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Sabiha_Gokcen.jpg#.7B.7Bint:license-header.7D.7D){kind=link}
--Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 23:06, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
