kannst du mir helfen, die Metadatei zu entfernen? Die gehört ja nicht zu einer Rekonstruktion?! Danke! --[[User:Haubi|Haubi]] ([[User talk:Haubi|<span class="signature-talk">talk</span>]]) 21:53, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
kannst du mir helfen, die Metadatei zu entfernen? Die gehört ja nicht zu einer Rekonstruktion?! Danke! --[[User:Haubi|Haubi]] ([[User talk:Haubi|<span class="signature-talk">talk</span>]]) 21:53, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
:Ich hatte dir schon heute vormittag auf :de geantwortet bzw. nachgefragt, weil mir unklar ist, was du genau meinst. --[[User:Túrelio|Túrelio]] ([[User talk:Túrelio#top|<span class="signature-talk">talk</span>]]) 21:57, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
:Ich hatte dir schon heute vormittag auf :de geantwortet bzw. nachgefragt, weil mir unklar ist, was du genau meinst. --[[User:Túrelio|Túrelio]] ([[User talk:Túrelio#top|<span class="signature-talk">talk</span>]]) 21:57, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
==Izumo Taisha==
Hi, Turelio.
I need your help for something I don't know hoe to handle. Izumo Taisha's photos are classified under Izumo Taisya, while Izumo Taisha is a redirect. The opposite is correct. Taisya is a Japanese romanization used nowhere else. Nobody but a Japanese would use it, and it's technically obsolete to boot. Can you help?
[[User:Urashimataro|Urashimataro]] ([[User talk:Urashimataro|<span class="signature-talk">talk</span>]]) 03:38, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
Revision as of 03:38, 27 September 2012
This user is busy in real life and may not respond swiftly to queries.
Thanks a lot for contributing to the Wikimedia Commons! Here's a tip to make your uploads more useful: Why not add some categories to describe them? This will help more people to find and use them.
Here's how:
1) If you're using the UploadWizard, you can add categories to each file when you describe it. Just click "more options" for the file and add the categories which make sense:
2) You can also pick the file from your list of uploads, edit the file description page, and manually add the category code at the end of the page.
[[Category:Category name]]
For example, if you are uploading a diagram showing the orbits of comets, you add the following code:
When picking categories, try to choose a specific category ("Astronomical diagrams") over a generic one ("Illustrations").
Thanks again for your uploads! More information about categorization can be found in Commons:Categories, and don't hesitate to leave a note on the help desk.
Hi Túrelio!
Vielen Dank für deinen schnellen Kommentar. Die Bilder sind leider auf Privatgelände gemacht (abgezäunt), der Bau ist mit 22 ha Gelände umgeben und nicht öffentlich einsehbar.
Es besteht aber eine Schöpfungshöhe, da er denkmalgeschützt ist und einer der wenigen Bauhaus-Krankenhausbauten in Deutschland ist.
In den Archiven "Bauhaus architecture" etc. fehlen diese Bilder leider. Es besteht m.E. ein öffentl. Interesse.
Der aktuelle Besitzer hat wahrscheinlich nichts gegen eine Veröffentlichung.
Was ist der nächste Schritt?
Danke für die Rückmeldung. Kommentare bitte immer "unterschreiben" mit --~~~~. Das mit dem "öffentlichen Interesse" ist gut und ehrenwert, für die Urheberrechtsklärung aber irrelevant. Der aktuelle Besitzer hat kein Urheberrecht am Gebäude, das haben vielmehr die Nachfahren des Architekten. Wenn du die herausfinden (und überzeugen kannst), wäre das die absolut beste Lösung. Falls das nicht geht, müssen wir versuchen, ein paar Experten zu gewinnen, die für jedes einzelne Objekt die Schöpfungshöhe abschätzen. Dort, wo eine solche besteht, muss dann wohl leider gelöscht werden. --Túrelio (talk) 16:44, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Modifications
Hi Túrelio, how are you? I had fear because in the baseboard of the pages of the book it has written: "direitos reservados" - rights reserved. But it is of 1930, and is legal today in Brazil, because it has 70 years more than. P.M.J. is "Prefeitura Municipal de Jequié" - Jequié City Council, and the coat is public domain. See you later. Thursday, 08/18/2011, 21:39 (Horário de Brasília - UTC−03:00). Gomes Netto.
Thanks for the feedback. However, we will have to check whether interior space is really coverd by FOP exemption of copyright law of Chile. --Túrelio (talk) 07:00, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I hereby award Administrator Túrelio this special barnstar for the extra huge contributions as Administrator on Commons. Well done and keep going! Mit freundlichen Grüßen -- George Chernilevskytalk20:52, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
In my opinion the longer file name is sufficiently more informative that, even if it were not the older file, it should be the name other file(s) redirect to.
Former navy photographer Shane McCoy has been quoted on how he recorded a series of very similar, but actually different images on January 11th, 2002. He attached his camera
to a monopod, then put his camera in a mode where it
automatically took a series of images, then held the monopod and camera over his head
so he could photograph the processing of those first 20 captives in a way that wasn't obscured by the tall fence htat surrounded the compound.
I just checked the revision history of the longer file name -- essentially blank.
There is a potential problem with the file you decided to keep.
The images McCoy took that day are very widely republished.
The DoD realized that mid-level press officers had made a gigantic blunder by
distributing these photos, which were originally intended for internal use only,
and quickly took them down.
Consequently about half the time they are republished they are improperly credited -- either not credited at all, or credited to various wire services, or to leading newspapers. It is a mess, and an indication of how non-professional the photo editors can be -- even at big news organizations. My impression is that those photo editors can be surprisingly oblivious of copyright issues, surprisingly poorly informed, and no one in their management chain really gives a damn if photos are routinely miscredited.
This has represented a problem in the past, not just in general, but with this series of images in particular. Good faith contributors come across instances where one of these images has been republished, but where it is credited to a news organization, and they want to challenge whether the image should be considered PD. Many good faith contributors here take the precautionary principle to such lengths that won't accept good faith assurances that no civilian photographers were allowed to take photos early in the camp's history.
The image you chose to keep has sourcing which I anticipate may result in it being challenged. It was transferred from en.wiki way back in 2006, without explicitly carrying over its original sourcing. If the image you chose to discard had a source field that was still active, and the page at that link properly credited the image to Shane McCoy that would be a very strong reason to make that image and its {{Information}} template the base image. Even if it merely linked to a page that didn't offer a credit at all I think it would be preferable than saying the image was transferred from wikipedia in 2006, when 2006 is too early to go back to the original wikipedia page to try and find the original source.
So, is it technically possible for you to graft back on the original history for the image with the longer name that you replaced with a redirect? If so, could you pleas do so?
Hello, the two photos are by some sort of fluke with the Pixelio note was published. I've edited it for upload to Pixelio (trimmed to the essentials, Levels ..). (I did not Commons). Since I am registered with Wikimedia, I've uploaded my (subjective) best possible images in Commons. Since I have the originals on an external backup drive - I have the simplicity of my pictures Pixelio retrieved and uploaded to Commons. The elevator in Lisbon now has no more indication of Pixelio (or?), The Aaron rod carries the hint, unfortunately, in the name - I do not know how I could change that.
mfG--Alfredte (talk) 21:13, 6 October 2011 (UTC)alfredte[reply]
Español (Spanish)
Hola Turélio. ¿Como estás? Cargué uns archivos sin cuidado, no respetando los derechos de los autores, y sin poner el permiso del autor. Para no dañar mi imágen y mucho menos el de Wikipedia, "pido humildemente que elimine los archivos de abajo", que me cargan:
Português (Portuguese)
Olá Turélio, tudo bom? Carreguei uns ficheiros por imprudência, não respeitando direitos autorais, e colocando sem a permissão do autor. Para não prejudicar a minha imagem e muito menos a da Wikipedia, "peço humildemente que exclua as imagens abaixo", por mim carregadas:
Hola Gomes Netto, I have speedydeleted the 3 recent image and the unused portrait. However, why should there be a problem with the old postcards etc.? As they have been published in 1930, they should be free since end of 2000 per Brazilian Copyright law. --Túrelio (talk) 18:35, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Español (Spanish)
Turélio ¡Muchas gracias! El punto es que las imágenes escaneadas de tarjetas postales antiguas que pertenecen a otra persona - una colección privada, y yo no pedí permiso. Por lo tanto, quiero corregir el mal que hice.
Português (Portuguese)
Muito obrigado Turélio! A questão é que digitalizei as imagens de cartões-postais antigos pertencentes a outra pessoa - um acervo particular, e eu não pedi autorização. Então, desejo consertar o errado que fiz.
I asked this question not for encyclopedic reasons, but to check whether the image is legal on Commons, as in Belgium there is not freedom of panorama. Is the original sculpture on ancient/old or a more recent work? --Túrelio (talk) 08:11, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
File tagging File:Renzo Rosso by Anton Corbijn.jpg
Hi Túrelio,
Thanks for your help and input on the images I uploaded.
I will categorize the images better from now on and get the signed copyrights from the copyright owner, Diesel, as soon as possible.
Hi WellesCorp, if you work for or act on behalf of Diesel Corp., please ask them to provide you a permission of those works of which they are the rights holder. --Túrelio (talk) 16:04, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Túrelio, although the weird name Im actually just an independent writer, though obviously with a lot of interest in Diesel and its founder. I have emailed the Diesel press office and asked them to supply written permission for the photos. Hopefully it will come through soon. Thanks again for your help! All best.--Wellescorp (talk) 20:45, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Question on duplicates
I think the "duplicate files = always speedy delete" rule needs a bit of looking into. In 99% of cases, its not a big deal. However there's one class of images I'm really not sure about. What if the files are identical but depict two different subjects?
For example File:Blason Bourgogne-comté ancien(aigle).svg and (the deleted) Special:Undelete/File:Roussillon-Anjou.svg have identical SVG content. However they have fundamentally different descriptions as they depict two different subjects (which happen to be visually identical). I'm not keen on the idea of merging the descriptions and having one file description handle every different subject. We have enough legibility problems with many different language descriptions on one file. To have many different subjects?
Given the complexity of this type of situation, it feels like a full deletion request is probably better (ie it should not be eligible for speedy deletion). In such a DR, I'd probably vote to keep (based on concern I have above), but don't know what community consensus will be on this.--Nilfanion (talk) 22:57, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
As I have used "your" special script for dupes for a lot of files in the last months, I have indeed found situations where I did halt the already started process, especially when there were extensive descriptions which were not identical between the 2 files, as with File:The Pinwheel Galaxy, M101, in the Infrared.jpg. As of yet I have then left those files with the dupe-tag to other colleagues. Most are gone, anyway. The above mentioned File:Roussillon-Anjou.svg was in the dupe-queue already since 3 days, as I had hesitated to perform the deletion until today. I have no problem with restoring it, though the links may already have been replaced. --Túrelio (talk) 23:09, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
To be honest I'm not particularly bothered about the file in question here (and see no real need to restore) - the deleted version might be of a different subject, but I don't think it was in use and its caption/file name don't appear to be that useful. I'm more concerned about the implications for our speedy criteria as clearly, discussion is needed for such files. In the case of the one for the Pinwheel Galaxy, merging the descriptions is quite complex; and isn't really in the deleting admin's remit (we just want to push a button!). In the case of COAs, its if two seperate files or one with a combined caption is the better way of presenting.
I wonder if it would be sensible to tighten up the wording of the policy, and on the template, to ensure users are aware of the need to sort out the description and don't just say "bitwise identical = delete"?
Btw, on that image OSX is frustrated about - how about a full deletion, followed by a selective restore? I think that would do it (and you could also rm the tag nonsense edits).--Nilfanion (talk) 23:24, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
msg
hi you left me a msgs about the photo of rodolfo jimenez he had ginven me permision to use it it belong to him but now i dont have anything to do with him can you please errase it and regarding the other one of Carolina sandoval titled mme osea yo that was taken from her camera and she gave it to me to put it in her wikipedia — Preceding unsigned comment added by Topmartz (talk • contribs) 5. November 2011, 21:48 Uhr (UTC)
Filemove reversion
Hello Túrelio,
Yesterday I moved file File:ESA Gothaerstr9 Bild1.jpg to File:ESA Gothaerstr7 Bild1.jpg on an uploader's request. Now, because of misidentifying the subject, he wants me to revert that move. I use the "revert" link in my Logs, but an error message appeared: "The file name chosen is already in use on a shared repository. Please choose another name."
I thought that if the destination file hasn't been changed since the filemove, we can revert the rename? Or is it only sysops can do the revert? If so, please do it for me (here is the request of the uploader). Thank you. PRENN(talk)00:41, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Requested image deletion
Hi. Do not know if this is the appropriate place for this. I apologise if it is not.
Regarding my deletion requests, I saw that you saved 2 images (this and this). Even if I can agree that quality of the these picture might be better, main (and probably only) purpose of this pictures is to be hosted in PSM project on WS, where naming convention is very important.
For the following reasons: 1) these were uploaded by mistake and risk only to confuse, 2) we can upload improved quality images of the correct ones, 3) the source is clearly identified and everybody if interested, can easily reach it, I suggest that we delete also these two.
Will you please reconsider the request? Thanks --Mpaa (talk) 16:43, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
FoP in Iran
Hi Túrelio, Could you please have a look at this DR that is about FOP issues in Iran. I hope that this help the community to reach a consensus about FOP issues in Iran. Furthermore, it might be helpful to have a look at this discussion you had earlier this year. Thanks AMERICOPHILE08:48, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with you philosophically about the canvassing. The area could be seen as negative. However, I think the focus on canvassing ignored that there were many supporters that gave no reason for their support, with no background on Commons, etc. while there were many opposes who were prominent members here. It is a little sad that Peter Damian's issue ignored the problems on Commons that I was bothered with - asking people behind the scenes to speedy delete images then try to prevent others from doing the same via DR (i.e. in public and not pulling favors) while claiming pointing out the double standard would be harassment. Then the coverup of his past actions in very out of process ways and having defenders make blatant untruths about Wikipedia's policies (the Clean Start policy makes it clear that people have the right to point out the previous socks and that when you edit in the same topic area it can be construed as trying to hide past behavior. Fae verified that such concerns were true by having people rev del out of process and getting pages deleted out of process). The user had a background of putting up copyright infringing material at Wikipedia and making BLP violations, and it is obvious from at least a few images that they continued this behavior here. I think if the BLP matters and the copyright matters were known, they would not have been allowed on OTRS and their many, many bad rationales at DRs here would have been met with a block to stop disruption.
Commons affects all projects, and there is a difference between disagreeing and harm. I believed that Fae and I merely disagreed until I saw the lengths he was willing to go to regarding hypocrisy and preventing others from self-nomination deletions of their images while nastily attacking others in those reviews and tossing around rather hateful accusations in a very unfair way. Hate is never good, and his hateful ways of interacting with others was why he kept having to change names before. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:50, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
File:Hans Hartig Bei Bardowick in der Lüneburger Heide 1900.jpg
Hallo! Habe gesehen, dass Du dort auf meinen Duplikat-Hinweis geantwortet hast - sollte man sonst beide Dateien als "other versions" miteinander verlinken, ohne eine von beiden zu löschen? Ohnehin sind beide gleichermaßen nicht mehr als nur Abzüge von einem Original. Guten Start ins neue Jahr! --ChristianSW (talk) 21:14, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Request of undo of deletions of paintings and pictures of manav gupta
Hallo Túrelio, auch ich wünsche dir Gesundheit, Zufriedenheit und dass dir gelingt, was du dir vornimmst! Du machst hier einen megaguten Job nicht nur mit deinem Fleiß, sondern auch auf eine sympathische Art, die wertvoll ist für das gesamte Projekt. Deine Familie und Freunde wissen hoffentlich, welchen Schatz sie bei sich haben. :-) --Martinatalk17:38, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I have tagged some files (Caj.jpg, Lab Geral.JPG, CampusSantoAmaro CentroConvencoes b.jpg, CampusSantoAmaro Biblioteca a.jpg, CampusSantoAmaro PredioGastronomia b.jpg, CampusSantoAmaro AreasdeConvivencia a.jpg) for speedy deletion as I felt they meet the criteria for that. I saw your comments and I understand your doubt.
You know that anyone can create an account with the name they want. I could create an account with the name Sony Ericsson, but that does not give me the right to use the images registered in their Picasa album without the required permission. I think someone tried to impersonate Senac São Paulo, a well known institution in Brazil, and thereby promote the images improperly.
To me there is no problem in deleting the images, since in the albums can be seen clearly that all rights are reserved, according to the author. But if you think evidence is still needed, I can try to contact Senac.
Ah! I've made a mistake about the file Caj.jpg, sorry. They are not the same image, as you wrote. You can remove the speedy delete tag from this file. Agente Rolf (talk) 19:12, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Guten Tag Turelio, einen Teil der Antwort hat der Benutzer "Botaurus" schon gegeben. Den großen Teil meiner Antwort möchte hier nur umschreiben.. (Näheres gern über E-Mai; da lesen nicht Alle mit) Durch meine konkreten Lebensumstände bedingt konnte und kann ich nicht so wie ich möchte. So bin ich erst im höheren Lebensalter mit Herrn Computer in näheren Kontakt gekommen. Weiterhin hatte ich nie Englisch, was sich als großer Nachteil bei Wikipedia herausstellt. So konnte ich mich mittels Google-Übersetzer auch nicht gut mit "AnonMoos" verständigen; es ist also nicht so, dass ich 2 Jahre lang nichts versucht hätte. Bei dieser Gelegenheit muss ich doch gleich meine Meinung mal offen legen zu der GNU-Lizenz, die bei o.g. Bild/Datei enthalten ist (warum auch immer). Die dieser folgende Lizenz (von mir vergeben) ist meines Erachtens die "schärfere" Lizenz. Wenn ich demnach gestatte die weichere GNU anzuwenden, wird die Vergabe der anderen Lizenz sinnlos, oder ? Freundiche Grüße --LenderKarl (talk) 14:43, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hallo Karl, der angesprochene Unterschied zwischen schärferer und weicherer GNU-Lizenz ist mir nicht klar. Insgesamt wird die GFDL/GNU-Lizenz als weniger geeignet für Bilder betrachtet. Aber was stört dich an der Lizenz, die vermutlich sowieso niemand benutzen wird? Das Problem, dass ich mit einer Löschung von File:Permanent calendar greg.svg sehe, ist dass diese Datei laut Google-Suche auch auf einer Reihe von nicht-Wikimedia-Seiten verwendet wird. Wenn man sie jetzt einfach löscht, dann verschwindet das Bild (sofern ge"hot"linkt) von diesen Seiten oder es fehlt ihnen pötzlich die Quelle. Da ich aus der Löschdiskussion den Eindruck habe, dass dich eigentlich mehr die mindere Qualität der SVG-Umsetzung (kann ich selbst nicht beurteilen) stört, wäre es m.E. eine bessere Lösung, die "mangelhafte" Version durch eine bessere/korrekte Version zu ersetzen, also einfach drüberzuladen. Das geht allerdings nur SVG -> SVG, nicht SVG -> PNG. Könntest du dich damit anfreunden? --Túrelio (talk) 15:40, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nein, oder besser: Nicht bekannt. Wenn ich an die umfangreiche Arbeit denke, die dem Vernehmen nach die Umwandlung einer png in eine svg macht, bin ich fast der Meinung, wir lassen es so wie es ist. Es sind doch nur Kleinigkeiten, welche die Aussagen des Kalenders nicht beeinträchtigen. Betreffs der Lizenzen habe ich vertrauen in Deine Aussagen !--LenderKarl (talk) 10:33, 5 January 2012 (UTC)--LenderKarl (talk) 14:39, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hai,
you have deleted File:Dhwani 10 fashion show.jpg due to Screenshot of non-free content: Speedydelete.But the image was taken by me and later edited using gimp (which may be felt as Screenshot).I have also shared this picture to many free picture sharing websites.
so please restore the image in Commons.
Abilngeorge (talk) 17:09, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the alleged author of the image filled a judicial proccess against me. My lawyer checked and the same person filled a hundred judicial proccesses at the same time. The same image can be found on a lot of sites. The author have placed a small text on the image page too stating that he does not authorize the use of the image (think he doesn't know how to ask for deletion). Allgood (talk) 12:16, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I am sorry to hear that. Did you already copy the logs of this upload, in order to be able to provide evidence for a good-faith-use on your behalf? --Túrelio (talk) 13:17, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
We are settling the proccess, looks like he stabilished a "catch-coins" scheme, and as I was very naive trying to automatically incorporate articles from Wikipedia on a local news site, ended up shooting myself in the foot. I will have to pay a not-so-small quantity to him, but in my analisys, it would cost a lot more only to defend myself, including a forced tourism travel to the beautiful city of Cabedelo/PB for me and my lawyer. So I ended closing my 'automatic clone' site that never gave me a penny. As the proccess are publicly available, I am thinking in getting it on the wild as soon as it is closed to warn all the friends to take care on this things! Allgood (talk) 00:52, 18 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
My pics
Hello Turélio!
I've been posting on Wikimedia Commons some South Parked pictures of me! So, you said that you'll delete them cause they're copyright violations! D: Anyway, I've posted the owners of the image in their descriptions, I always say that they're art from Trey Parker and Matt Stone, creators of the South Park series. And I respected the copyrights page in the site where I get my images. Please dont delete them. They're so important to my Wikipedia page
Hi, what do you mean by "pictures of me"? Aren't these the regular characters? But even if they aren't, I strongly assume that the appearance ("design") of these figures is copyrighted and/or trademarked. And what/where is the "site where I get my images"? --Túrelio (talk) 22:15, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I was surprised that the robot uploaded image remains poorly categorized.
I am sure I have written to you before about how counter-productive it seems to me to favor images uploaded by robots over images uploaded by real human beings, as (1) real human beings are more likely to make sure an images categories are wisely chosen; (2) robots have no feelings to be hurt.
It doesn't seem like me to have failed to put this image in useful categories. Did I really fail to do so? If I did add meaningful categories I am going to assume not adding them to the image you kept that was kept was an oversight.
Yours was newer (ie the robot uploaded one was here first). You uploaded in Aug 2010 and the bot did it in Nov 2009. Yours only contained these categories: Category:USNS Able, Category:Piracy. The former seems to redirect to the category that's currently on the robot uploaded version and the latter can be easily added. Did you mention something about wisely chosen categories? Killiondude (talk) 07:33, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Honestly, I increasingly hate this kind of dupe-deletions that result from our may-be-not-so-well-thought do-not-overwrite policy. As already mentioned by Killiondude, the bot-uploaded image was uploaded about 10 months earlier than yours. The upload-precedence is an important forensic point in the choice which image should stay. If you provide me an easy-to-handle solution how to legally-safe record the original upload date of the other version, this point might become less critical. --Túrelio (talk) 07:52, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
PD-1996 und so
Huhu. Aufgrund einer Anfrage auf WP:UF kam ich auf deinen Edit hier. Könntest du mal da nachschauen? PD-1996 ist da meines Erachtens nach nicht richtig, da Juni 1976 + 20 Jahre = Juni 1996, aber das liegt doch nach dem URAA-Datum vom 1.1.1996, oder? Da ich mich damit nicht auskenne kannst du dich drum kümmern? Danke. --Quedel (talk) 14:25, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ömm, also ich halte mich von den inkonsistenten PD-Bestimmungen der USA i.a. eher fern, weil ich es schwer durchschaubar finde. Auch die Hinweis im PD-Italy-Fenster sind unklar: "es wurde vor 1976 erstellt" oder "es nach 1976 erstellt". Dieses wurde aber in 1976 erstellt, was gilt hier? Aber egal, ich hab jetzt mal {{Not-PD-US-URAA}} gesetzt, weshalb das Foto wohl gelöscht werden muss. --Túrelio (talk) 14:38, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Da ich mich noch weniger damit auskenne als du, wirst du schon das richtige tun, auch wenn mir jede Behaltensmöglichkeit lieber ist. Aber konsequent müssen wir schon sein. Und es ist auch kein Foto, was wir nach de.wp retten können :( --Quedel (talk) 16:30, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I've been the first day. These images that I uploaded, I bought a internet-site shop which I have in the copyright notice. For them to pay money, then they are legal. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Артём Алтухов (talk • contribs) 28. Januar 2012, 22:10 Uhr (UTC)
Hi Артём, images (and any other files) uploaded to Commons have to be free for any kind of use and without any further payment or similar. Images on websites are generally considered unfree, except if they are expressedly put under a free license by the photographer. The smugmug.com website carries a (C) note and none of the subpages of individual photographers is under a free license. I do not fully understand what you mean by "I bought". Did you pay the photographer for these images? If yes, what kind of use does that include? I rather doubt that this would include redistribution under a free license, because that would mean that the photographer no longer can sell these images. For some general information, see COM:CB. --Túrelio (talk) 21:15, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Deine Fragen vom 28.1. bez. Bilder zu Kunst am Kanal
Hallo Turelio,
vielen Dank zunächst für Deine Rückmeldung. Da ich nur sporadisch in Wikipedia arbeite habe ich nicht viel Erfahrungen und denke nicht an alle rechtlichen Eventualitäten.
Ich hoffe es ist der richtige Weg Deine Fragen zu beantworten, ich habe keine Möglichkeit für einen direkten "reply" gefunden:
- Löschung des Artikels der Neumarkter Nachrichten ist korrekt. An die rechtliche Seite habe ich nicht gedacht und entschuldige mich dafür.
- Alle Objekte, also auch die Kugeln und EINSTSTEIN sind Eigentum des Vereins und sind dauerhaft installiert. Die Kugeln waren ursprünglich Leihgaben sind aber inzwischen angekauft. EINST STEIN ist eine Schenkung.
- Das Bild vom Model wird inzwischen nicht mehr benötigt. Ich habe es bereits aus dem Artikel gelöscht. Du kannst das Bild daher komplett löschen.
Danke für die Rückmeldung. Allerdings ist es so, dass das Eigentum an einem Kunstwerk keine wirkliche Relevanz für das Urheberrecht daran hat (ich weiß, ist vielen nicht so geläufig). Das Urheberrecht verbleibt beim Künstler, bis 70 Jahre nach dessen Tod. Allerdings gibt es in D/CH/A zum Glück die sog. Panoramafreiheit, die es rechtlich erlaubt, von im öffentlichen Raum dauerhaft angebrachten Kunstwerken Fotos usw. zu machen und diese auch kommerziell zu nutzen. Aufgrund dieser Regelung sind Fotos von den installierten Kunstwerken (sofern im Prinzip dauerhaft aufgestellt, was wohl auch für as zusammengebrochene gilt) somit legal, bedürfen allerdings eines entsprechenden Hinweises, weil unklar ist, ob die Fotos auch in Ländern ohne Panoramafreiheit (Frankreich, Belgien, u.v.a.m.) legal benutzt werden dürfen. Was das erwähnte Modell angeht, bräuchtest du nur den Künstler um eine Genehmigung zu bitten (Details: Commons:OTRS/de) und diese an [email protected] weiterzuleiten, dann könnte es auch bleiben. --Túrelio (talk) 13:20, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Thorvaldsson, as I only executed the deletion request by User:Vincent Steenberg, who also provided this rationale, it might be better to ask him directly. If, in the end, you both agree to revert to the former state, I have no problem with that. --Túrelio (talk) 21:13, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Please delete this image that I speedied. I didn't know that a second user had typed in a fake flickrpass in my name. I never even saw this image. If an anon IP does this, just revert the flickrpass and either 1. tag it for deletion or 2. allow another trusted user or Admin to mark it. This image is obviously a derivative anyway and a flickrwash. I only mark images with my signed in user account. Thank You for notifying. One day, I may be away...but I would never pass an image with an anonymous IP account. That is for sure. Best Regards from Canada, --Leoboudv (talk) 00:05, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hola,
La Fotografía sacada de Flickr, el autor Dj ph puso la licencia con la etiqueta Atribución-NoComercial-CompartirIgual 2.0 Genérica (CC BY-NC-SA 2.0) a la que la borraste según con la licencia No Comercial , Sin obras derivadas , or Todos los derechos reservados , Por favor vuelve a revisarla --Asaraya (talk) 00:02, 4 Febrero 2012 (UTC)
... schaust du bitte mal über meine Beiträge. Ich hoffe ich hab nicht allzuviel grobe Fehler eingebaut (Bei Commons übe ich ja noch...). P.S. ich hatte mal im de:WP Artikel Rumänien nachgeschaut, dort konnte ich nur den Hinweis finden "Mitglied der NATO (2004) sowie der Europäischen Union (2007)". Einen Hinweis auf das Schengen-Abkommen fand ich im Artikel nicht. Im Artikel Schengener Abkommen wird zu Rumänien der Hinweis: "Bestimmungen über die Außengrenze sind bereits in Kraft" gegeben. Just for Info! LG --1971markus (☠):⇒ Laberkasten ... 23:01, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ich hoffe, dass ich morgen dazu komme. Die hemmungslosen URV-Hochlader hindern unsereiner zu oft daran, das zu tun, was wir viel lieber täten. Bzgl. Rumänien war ich schon zur selben Schlußfolgerung gekommen, hatte das aber nur Rehgina mitgeteilt. --Túrelio (talk) 08:53, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hi,
I understand I might have done something wrong with Guillaume sarkozy file. The thing is the current image is no longer displayed on Flickr. That's why I displayed a new image.
Is there any other way I can change the current image ?
Thanks for your help.
TheYoungPilgrim
Hi, your new version of the image is NC/ND-restricted on Flickr, which is not allowed on Commons. However, the fact that the older version is no longer available on Flickr doesn't really matter as the correct license was checked at the date of upload (see the green box). CC licenses are considered to be non-revokable. We would consider this to be a problem only if there would be solid evidence that the image was already a copyvio when originally uploaded to Flickr. --Túrelio (talk) 23:38, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hi RonsonPeru2, I didn't say to be sure that you are not the copyright holder, just that it seemed unlikely to me, as is very often with shots from celebrities. Anyway, if you are really the photographer, then I recommend you to follow the advise of my colleague PierreSelim on your talkpage. --Túrelio (talk) 14:35, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I deleted only a few of your uploads, but notified you of most deletion requests. So, obviously my other admin colleagues who also performed the deletion, were also convinced that you are not the copyright holder. For the most definite answer see here. --Túrelio (talk) 14:32, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. But then it is the work of a photographer and is likely copyrighted. Obviously being inside the house, it is unlikely to be covered by FOP exemption. --Túrelio (talk) 13:17, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
File:Dombóvári Helytörténeti Múzeum rajza.jpg
This is a drawing, isn't yet ready. I don't who taken it.
Hi, this picture is croppped from the original one. As I know pictures like this one doesn't have meta data. Why is it a crop? I made pics to players of Atom team yet, so this time I went to the match without a special attitude to making good quality portait pics (made some only to my fan FB site). But, as a addicted wikipedist ;) I can't refrain to put even not very good quality photo to player who didn't have any one. I've added some location informations yet.--Zorro2212 (talk) 09:19, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
O.k., thanks for the feedback. However, there is no principal problem why crops should/could not have the EXIF data of teh original uncropped image. It simply depends on the settings of the software you use. For example in the freeware IrfanView, maintaining the EXIF is the default. So, you might look at your cropping program and change the settings. --Túrelio (talk) 10:02, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Help again
Hello Túrelio - you have been helpful and logical in the past, so maybe you can help me with this one? This is one of 87 pictures uploaded from Garage de l"Est's website over the last six years. They have all been targeted for deletion for a few weeks now, for various causes all of which I am trying to fix. I received permission from the owner of the Garage (still languishing in OTRS) but since many shots were uploaded long ago, the original images are no longer available. So while I managed to find a source for the image in question, the link is now dead. I did find a shot of another car, taken in the same location. If you could be so kind so as to look at the shot, originally uploaded by 328cia and then again by Love Krittaya. Both of those users stated the image came from delest.nl, the image size, subject, and background all match the other images available on delest.nl. Thanks again for your consideration.
Also, perhaps you can aid in somehow establishing a way to confirm the source for these images, so that I won't have to go through this all over again next year? Mr.choppers (talk) 16:28, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hello! You tagged a few of my uploades and I was notified here. According to the respective sources, Sony Music licensed these images under a Creative commons attribution 3.0 license through their account at mynewsdesk.com. (If you reply here, we can keep this discussion in one place) --Bensin (talk) 16:31, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I would prefer the discussion at your talkpage, but I've spread it already by myself [4]. You know, this is nothing against you. Formally you seem to be correct about the licensing. I simply doubt that Sony etc. would give away high-qual promo shots under CC-BY and, at least in part, even not remove the "All rights reserved" from the EXIF data. --Túrelio (talk) 16:38, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, can you help me with this picture? File:Rafael Roldós Vinyolas.jpg The point it's that this guy born in 1846 and dead in 1918, so, i think that now this pic is free, because the rights are expired. It's right? Can you help me putting the correct info in the pic?
Hi, first you should provide the source from where you got this image. "Periodico" is not enough. I assume you got it from a website; so put the URL/address into the source entry. I'll go offline for the next 12 hours and will look into it later. --Túrelio (talk) 17:30, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
O.k., that's better. The image caption doesn't really help, as the "credit" likely refers only to the second image, not to the portrait. In order to find out whether the image is still protected (Spain had 80 years pma already in 19th century), you should contact[5] the editors of elperiodico.com and ask them for the name of the photographer of the photo of Roldós Vinyolas. If they say, we don't know, then it might go as anonymous work. Please forward their reply to [email protected]. --Túrelio (talk) 11:35, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hello and really thanks for your help. I sent an email to the people in El Periódico. Anyway, this pic have at least 94 years, because the man was dead in 1918; so I understand that the picture is free of rights? Thank you so much, --Wiay22 (talk) 12:25, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That is not automatically ensured. If the photographer died 20 years after taking the photo and if you consider the 80-year-after death-of-the-author proection of Spain, it might still be protected. --Túrelio (talk) 13:06, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I still not have answer of El Periodico. In the other hand, as you can see in El Periódico new, the picture is from the familiar archive of Rafael Roldós, so only the familly have the original. I know the family and they want that this picture will be free. Can they do something for it? It is enought with a mail from the familly? I don't know what i have to do... Thanks a lot again. --Wiay22 (talk) 01:37, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Could you have a look of the files uploaded by LUIGI19956? Several of the uploads was deleted by you and Sreejithk2000 yesterday, after I had marked them as copyvios. I suspect the rest also to be copyvios; some of them seem to be television screenshots. See e.g. [6] - File:Franco Ricciardi Wikipedia.png can be found 53 seconds out in this official video. - 4ing (talk) 07:24, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hi 竹筍弟弟, actually I did not delete these, but only tagged them and notified you. Anyway, we need a written permission from the true rights holder. If you got "authorization from that television" company, then forward it (include all headers) to [email protected] and don't forget to mention the filenames. --Túrelio (talk) 09:50, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Every creative work belongs to its author and he/she can decide whether to retain the full copyright (that is the default per law) or to release it under a free license. If you reproduce a creative work, which is copyrighted by someone else, you infringe his/her copyright and therefore you nee his/her permission. --Túrelio (talk) 12:24, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
英文對我來說，太複雜了，我看不是很懂。
(English is too hard for me. I can't understand very much.)
我也看不懂德文
(I can't understand Deutsch language, too.)
反正我的檔案就是不允許放在維基共享資源就對了？
(Anyway, my files are forbidden in the Wikipedia and Wikicommons, right?)
The uploader told me that he took both photos as the audience. I know that Taiwanese TV progeam admitting audiences.--Jusjih (talk) 15:10, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
But i think you are not right, Túrelio. Here we can see
None of the materials provided on this web site may be used, reproduced or transmitted, in whole or in part, in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording or the use of any information storage and retrieval system, except as provided for in the Terms and Conditions of Use of United Nations Web Sites, without permission in writing from the publisher.
Well, it's neither my nor the uploader's fault, if the ICTY people are so idiotic to put contradictory copyright statements on their website. IMO, in most jurisdictions this will mean, that you can take the statement which favors you. As these images are encyclopedically important (documenting war crimes in a recent conflict), we should do anything to have them stay on Commons. If you want to have that discussed by a greater audience, you could open a regular DR for 1 image and in a side-note include the other 2 (without opening a mass-DR). But a speedy is surely not appropriate in that case. --Túrelio (talk) 17:52, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You wrote:
Hi Inugami-bargho, the description of this image says "it's in the public domain", but at the same time it is under a CC-BY-license. Both don't fit together, either PD or CC-BY. Besides, it would be interesting to know, where this dog was pictured. --Túrelio (Diskussion) 09:15, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
Sorry I do not know where it was taken. And the license was imported from flickr via the Flinfo tool. So I cannot help you there. Should it be the case that the file has to be deleted, I have no problem with that.--Inugami-bargho (talk) 09:28, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry if I sound rude but I wouldn't ask you for help if I could do it by myself! I have never done it before. Plus I have a really bad experiences with this crap before so I don't want to entangle myself into things I'm not familiar with! I hate doing things like this! So the your answer is "you can't help me"? Trongphu (talk) 18:43, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
O.k., the first thing in such cases is to check whether the current licensing of the image on :en is plausible. In this case it is not, at least not to me. Therefore I have asked the original uploader for comment[7]. As he is only sporadically online, his reply may take some time. --Túrelio (talk) 18:53, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Salvatore of Nina, your licensing of File:Woman figure.jpg does not make sense. If it is really your own work, then you do not need to add PD-Art. However, if it is not your own work, then you cannot add PD-Art, because it seems to be a 3-dimensional piece and PD-Art is only for 2-dimensional works. --Túrelio (talk) 09:00, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Vi que hace tiempo eleminastes la foto de la ficha de pagina Pabellon Girona Fontajau por violacion del copyright segun tu en la pag http://www.panoramio.com/photo/13024252, como veras ya dije que soy el autor de la foto como sale en panoramio subida por jmsolerb , osea YO, asi que vuelve a admitirla, GRACIAS
User: Zzzquil - image you have tagged for deletion
My name is Scotty, and within my wiki there is a Listed option now. My friends from here and I agreed that I could stay in good perspective of our project scope as well as not "inadvertently flaunt" any of the contributions to our Organization (I'm permitted to test within the Sandbox). I have been asked from brothers and their families to make sure their works do not become as profane as say "urbandictionary" where references are much to do with flamebait or hate speech coding. May I please have the list removed so I may stay; I gave my Word the contributions I moderate are to remain a part of the project.
Your Best Friend,
Riseandsine
Hi Scotty, I have no idea what you arte talking about. What "list" do you refer to? Did I delete any of your uploads and you disagree? --Túrelio (talk) 21:40, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Deleting some photos of my contributions
Dear Túrelio, you has put the deleting template of 7 photos of my own work. How I can to demostrate the authority of my works for avoid the deleting? I can´t understand how some image files hosted in wikimedia hasn´t problems in the past and now are questions of the image authority. for example, File:FranciscoBejarano.jpg and File:Estatualuiscoloma.jpg are photos taken with my own camera. thank you, Regards. --Cvluis (talk) 09:57, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Cvluis,
to start with your last question. As we have very many uploads and only few people in the patrolling of new uploads, it is very common that when a new upload catches the attention of a new-uploads-patroler and he/she find a problem with it, he/she also checks all other uploads of the respective user. This comes simply out of our experience that when there is 1 problematic upload, there are often more.
I don't remember which of your files caught my attention, probably it was File:Carmenuñezfotos.jpg. When I viewed this image and saw your date-entry "2012", it was clearly not correct. When I found that at least one of the persons in this montage had died in 1923, it was clear to me that you can't be the photographer and that it can't be "own work" as you had claimed. Otherwise you would be at least 100 years of age. So, who is the photographer? Where did you find this photo? As you very often refer to the archives of some "José Luis Jiménez", who is this "Jose Luis Jiménez"? When did he die? Is he your father?
Hi Túrelio, i understand. I had confusions writing the details of the photos, for avoid the deleting, what i can do? I need send an email with copy of a written permission to OTRS or simply change the information in the image details. Regards. --Cvluis (talk) 20:03, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hello! I going to answer all questions from all files uploaded for Wikimedia:
File:Estatualuiscoloma.jpg Is a sculpture from Ramón Chaveli Carreres in 1919, and the photograph was taken by Jose Luis Jimenez, and he share the photo with the self|cc-by-sa-3.0 license.
File:FranciscoBejarano.jpg Is a photo taken by Jose Luis Jimenez, and he share the photo with the self|cc-by-sa-3.0 license.
File:Pemartinsanjuan.jpg as the last file, is a photo from a familiar archive of 1934, the photo was given to Jose luis Jimenez, and the life of the author plus 70 years.
And File:Isasi Ivison.jpg Is a photo taken by Jose Luis Jimenez, and he share the photo with the self|cc-by-sa-3.0 license.
O.k., thanks. I will work through all the images over the next day. The statue in Estatualuiscoloma.jpg is still protected (sculptor died only in 1947), but it should be covered by FoP of Spain. However, my most important question is still unanswered and that is about "Jose Luis Jiménez" (see above). If you don't want to answer that publicly, you may either send me an email or disclose it to [email protected] where it is also treated confidentially. --Túrelio (talk) 12:45, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, thanks. Jose Luis Jiménez is a other colaborator of Wikipedia, and i help her to upload some files to wikimedia and to compose some biographies, because he don't know to write with Wikipedia editor, and all images that he gives me to upload are under the self|cc-by-sa-3.0 license. I hope to ask your question of the identity of Jose Luis Jiménez (Her User account is Jljimenez). Regards. --Cvluis (talk) 18:44, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Turelio again, I like to know if my uploads going to remain in wikimedia, i only watch the missing of evidence of permission tag, and that says my files can be deleted the next monday. Thanks, regards. --Cvluis (talk) 12:42, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
File:Pemartinsanjuan.jpg: said to be shot in 1937 by unknown photographer. Then, how do you know it was shot in 1937? Further questions as 1 line above.
File:Isasi Ivison.jpg: said to be shot in 2012, which is surely wrong. So, when was it shot and by whom?
Hi, I confused to put the name of the source of the photo instead the author of the photo. If Jose Luis Jimenez obtain the photo from the descendants of the photo character, how i can put the information fields? Only File:FranciscoBejarano.jpg was shoted directly by Jose Luis Jiménez, and I send the confirmation permission email to [email protected]. Regards. --Cvluis (talk) 12:33, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I will go offline now and cannot look into it today. Anyway, in all cases, in which Jose Luis Jimenez was not the true photographer, you need to remove his name from the Author entry. In those images, which were from his archive, you should put "Archive Jose Luis Jimenez" into the Source entry, but not in the Author entry. --Túrelio (talk) 12:41, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, i can't understand this. I was from the last 28 of August claim the true information of my suspect copyright infraction images files, and them all photos be removed. How i can to improve Wikipedia and Wikipedia if i must to send to wikimedia a sworn statement of i'm not deceive to wikimedia?. And there a lot of users, and i can to report, that are uploading some images without any control of the copyright. I like to know if the Wikimedia administrators are creating a hunt for me and others users. Excuse my reproachfully and sarcastic tone, but i can't to understand this situation. Regards. --Cvluis (talk) 22:39, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Though it's pretty cold comfort, it doesn't matter much that the files have been deleted, as un-deletion is just 2 clicks for any admin. Objectively, there were quite some inconsistencies with your uploads, though I am confident that it may be possible to solve them for most of the files. As per our policy we have to delete files if there is reasonable suspicion that they are not free. At the moment we have the problem that we are overwhelmed with uploads due to the recently started "Wikiloves monuments" action in addition to the currently high rate of clear copyvios which we need to detect shortly after upload. The few volunteer sysops at Commons have simply far too much workload in these days. So, don't despair. You can either wait til I have more time or try to involve another admin, eventually a es-native speaker. --Túrelio (talk) 20:13, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Wiki Loves Monuments entries
Hi, I have found some entries to Wiki Loves Monuments deleted on the basis of the following:
I believe it can be expected that the watermarks of the uploader may actually be the uploader's real name and it would be different from an account name the uploader had registered. The arbitrary deletion without careful consideration is very discouraging and would defeat the purpose of enticing active participation in Wiki Loves Monuments based on the reasons given. I may be wrong but I am hoping for a quick response regarding the matter. -- Wiki Loves Monuments Philippine project manager (talk) 02:15, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I totally reject your accusation "arbitrary deletion without careful consideration". All 3 files were tagged for speedy deletion by one of my most senior admin colleagues and then performed by me, as I found the given rationale plausible.
In general: if we find an upload highly suspicious of being a copyvio, it needs speedy deletion, as from that moment on we are aware that it might be illegal and violate the right of another person or institution. This is also coded in our policy: Commons:Project scope/Precautionary principle. Of course, sometimes we err in our initial assessment, not the least as we have limited resources. But that is not a real problem, because a file can easily be undeleted.
Back to the problem at hand: an account calling himself "Greedyplus" surely doesn't sound very trustworthy from the beginning.
Now, his upload File:Sunset_by_the_Yatch.jpg not only has an artist's credit "Jonathan A. San Juan" in its EXIF and IPTC data, but also has a big watermark "Copyright" through the whole image, rendering it rather useless, in addition to being discouraged on Commons (Commons:Watermarks).
Doing some more time-consuming research, I found the blog http://maynardandrew.blogspot.de/, whose owner calls himself "Maynard Andrew Rabanal", which suggests that at least 5 of the 6 images may come from this photographer. Whether Greedyplus (talk·contribs) is identical to Mr. Maynard Andrew Rabanal still needs verification. Therefore I suggest that you contact either User:Greedyplus or the above mentioned blog-owner Maynard Andrew Rabanal and ask him to send either a permission for the uploads or a confirmation of the identity of user/blog owner, to be sent from an email address clearly associated with the blog or Maynard Andrew Rabanal, to [email protected] (emails to this account are not published or publicly disclosed). If you agree to this I can temporarily un-delete 2 of the deleted files, except File:Sunset by the Yatch.jpg, which still needs 1) an explaination and 2) removal of the watermark.
In addition, I suggest that you from "Wiki Loves Monuments Philippine" notify/educate your contributors, not to put watermarks on their uploads, as this makes the images less usable and as they will be removed anyway, if possible. They may put the name or wording for their attribution/credit into the EXIF data. --Túrelio (talk) 07:09, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the quick response. I have sent notice to the uploader regarding the matter regarding watermarks. As per several WLM discussions when we were still starting the project back in February, they advised us not to include in our criteria the need for photos not to bear watermarks and would rather leave it up to the jury to decide if they shall consider it. Our website gives some tips on what to submit, but cannot impose it as a requirement, as per advise of the WLM International Committee. I would appreciate notices, if similar incidents arise from entries coming from the Philippines before further action can be taken so as not to cause any confusion. Namayan (talk) 07:54, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
O.k., I have undelete 2 images.
If you want to get notified in case of similar problems, you should name a project or talk page, which is patrolled (more or less) round the clock. --Túrelio (talk) 07:59, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Can you please stop mark down those pictures as a ready for deletion? All these pictures are done by Neshy, I have his email where hui is asking me to upload these pictures on Vikipedia. If you wont I will forwarded to you that email. Thanks----László(talk)22:28, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Do you really understand the problem with the photos showing posters with a photo? Or do you claim that this Neshy also took the photo which is shown on the poster? --Túrelio (talk) 22:33, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Webmaster Fletcher04, for such kind of questions you should use my regular talkpage. Anyway: the problem is that on Flickr, this image is restricted to non-commercial use, an restriction which we don't accept per our policy. Now, the question is, why does a US federal institution, whose works are PD-USGov per law, use such a restriction? It might be that it's not their image, i.e. it wasn't shot by one of their personal. Therefore, I would recommend you to contact directly either the Flickr account or the ESML press/PR dep. and ask them about your wish. If they have the rights over this image, they should surely grant your wish, if they don't have, they can't. If that doesn't work, and as Dr. Wiley is dead already, you may use the image per fair-use, but only locally on :en wikipedia. --Túrelio (talk) 16:40, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Turelio,
I've search and can't find our discussion on this topic. We've changed the licensing on Flickr per a discussion with our internal Media Folks. http://www.flickr.com/photos/emsl/4517693659/. If this is acceptable to you, can you restore the image?
Based on what the file is deleted David Michael Bentle 16 September 2012 Rostov on Don stadium Olimp 2.jpg, before you delete something, we must analyze the situation and make smart decisions. I am the administrator of the Russian section and perfectly know the rules of the project's image obtained consent to the deployment of the file in the repository Commons. Please return the file and return to do it to the page of Wikipedia, he was removed from the bot. I consider your actions as harmful and rash does not correspond to the status of the administrator.
The page you brought up as evidence in Russian agreement described the author's photo on the Announcement is it to Commons under a free license. JukoFF (talk) 19:03, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nice that you know the rules and the situation on Commons sooo well, that you feel entitled to throw around accusations. Lets summarize the known facts:
So, I still fail to see where the free license, that you mentioned, is found. Direct me to it, then I can consider undeleting the image. --Túrelio (talk) 19:42, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
We say quietly. on page http://fc-rostov.livejournal.com/159728.html , Indicated that the original of these photos is available at http://starostin-a.livejournal.com/75629.html on this page in the dialogue between the author of photos and me (and nicknames starostin_a vesel_kartinki) is a dialogue in which the author agrees to the placement of photos under a free license. The source of N's personal website for compliance, in the description of the photos on Commons, you can specify both the source. 188.123.237.71 13:49, 19 September 2012 (UTC) JukoFF (talk) 13:50, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
O.k., I have temporarily undeleted the file, just out of good-will, as I can't really follow your conversation on livejournal. I have removed the copyvio-tag but added a no-permission-tag (which is less speedy). Now you should ask a ru-native-speaking Commons' admin to check whether the dialogue contains a valid permission and eventually to remove the no-perm-tag. Probably the dialogue needs to be archived in OTRS, as the livejournal entry can go away at any time. --Túrelio (talk) 21:01, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
At my request, party resend email with your permission, I think your mistake is obvious, please return the photograph in all language versions, from which it was removed by bots with your submission. JukoFF (talk) 16:33, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You seem to have problems to acknowledge facts. My above listed evidence was clearly suggestive of a copyvio and in such a situation deletion is mandatory (Commons:PRP), otherwise we would deliberately risk a copyright infringement. Even your conversation with Ahonc[13] shows that I was not the only one who failed to see a permission on the page you provided. While I am glad that now, 8 days after upload, a valid permission has been arrived at OTRS, that doesn't change the fact that it was missing on September 19.
Next time when you upload similar material, before a permission has been accepted by OTRS, you should put the {{OTRS pending}} template on the image page, as this gives you more time and usually prevents a copyvio-tagging. --Túrelio (talk) 19:36, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, I do not doubt that. The problem is that the content of the poster itself is copyrighted and by publishing your photo of that poster you are violating the copyright of the creator of the poster. The freedom-of-panorama exemption of Argentinian copyright law covers only buildings, nothing else. --Túrelio (talk) 20:59, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, sie ist seit März vollgeschützt. Vermutlich sind sämtliche seitdem aufgeschlagenen Benachrichtigungen von Benutzern mit Admin-Rechten (ich bin auch dabei, Schande). Allerdings dürften die meisten Meldungen per automatisiertem Skript erfolgt sein, also nicht individuell unter bewusster Bearbeitung der Disku. Ich muss mich erstmal schlau machen, ob man auch das verhindern kann. Gruß. --Túrelio (talk) 06:39, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It has recently been brought to the attention of Peter DeLuise that you have removed his personal headshot (in which he owns the copyright for) from his Wiki page. It is kindly requested that this headshot is put back, and not changed again in the future.
Hi PeterDeLuise, the way you are writing suggests that you, i.e. the account PeterDeLuise (talk·contribs), are not the real Mr. Peter DeLuise. Is that correct?
Re: "Wiki page" - I am not sure to what you are referring with that term. I have neither deleted the image (likely you are refering to File:Peter DeLuise Headshot.jpg) nor removed it from anywhere. However, I had tagged it for deletion for suspected copyvio. The uploader, you, had declared it to be from September 24, 2012, while it was found to be published already in 2008[14]. Also, it has been found elsewhere in higher resolution[15]. In addition, you claimed "PeterDeLuise" being the author (=photographer), which is somewhat unlikely with such a shot. Taken all this together, the file is highly suspicious of being the work of somebody else, i.e. a copyvio. In such a situation, speedy deletion is appropriate — the more as undeletion is rather easy, if evidence of true authorship/rights are provided.
Now the solution: you should ask the true rights holder for this image to send a written confirmation 1) of his ownership of the copyright and 2) of the release of the uploaded version under a cc-by-sa-3.0 license to [email protected] (OTRS). (emails to this address are treated confidentially) An OTRS volunteer will then check the permission, issue a so-called OTRS ticket and put a label on the image page, which marks it as having a valid permission. --Túrelio (talk) 06:31, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
sources etc
I need some clarification about PD. Does PD mean that the creator has to have been dead for over 70 years? Can a pic be in the PD if the creator has not been dead for 70 years, if so in what circumstances? (I asked one of those other people but frankly didn't understand a word he said.)
to 1) today yes, for most countries, surely in France. {{PD-France}} (click on it) even suggests the possibility of a longer protection.
to 2) yes, if the creator put it voluntarily (per declaration) in the PD, as today several users do with their contributions to Commons, but which is very unlikely for a photographer of early 20th century. There may be other reasons, such as #2 in {{PD-France}}. However, claiming a work/photo to be anonymous requires a thorough research, as you and any re-user may be hold liable if the work actually isn't anonymous and still protected. Therefore, :de-wikipedia does not accept any anonymous works, which might still be copyright per age of creation. As the Papin photos concern France, you might ask a fr-native admin/user, such a my colleague User:Yann for example, who might know more specifics about exeptions and exemptions in France copyright laws. --Túrelio (talk) 07:49, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, Turelio.
I need your help for something I don't know hoe to handle. Izumo Taisha's photos are classified under Izumo Taisya, while Izumo Taisha is a redirect. The opposite is correct. Taisya is a Japanese romanization used nowhere else. Nobody but a Japanese would use it, and it's technically obsolete to boot. Can you help?
Urashimataro (talk) 03:38, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Der alte Dateiname wird als Weiterleitung aber wohl erstmal erhalten bleiben. --Túrelio (talk) 06:43, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
![29 You removed "File:FionaR.jpg" from Commons but I have permission from Fiona to use it](#You_removed_"File:FionaR.jpg"_from_Commons_but_I_have_permission_from_Fiona_to_use_it){kind=link}
){kind=link}
![23:31, 16 January 2012 (UTC)](https://amansaja.com/index.php?q=Mfv0Kfa6bO9DL21TL25NbZJXM2BTnqvXou5RKAKRJ2BVMu9rK2rOp3vFLgU6rkrjaOrkwpdBLgBRe2aTzDCSateQbDi5zE41aO0OajiObtmPbti2rjeNyDaPyDmQbDmQahYTqq91p3dBLq92nqvHdZh1L3w7vABUntXgMq9SoreSMZlZdZh1L3w7p2nOL21Hw29TLq9SK19EJpvHur9YopnBp3lBKA1XK3zXL25HnZdRLr9gMq9Sor90L191##c-69.120.196.53-2012-01-16T23:31:00.000Z-You_removed_"File:FionaR.jpg"_from_Commons_but_I_have_permission_from_Fiona_to_u){kind=link}
![[7]](https://amansaja.com/index.php?q=Mfv0Kfa6bO9BLE53MqTXKgrCMqiSL3dZb3JXM2CRrpzBKB90oqPVyBdRLB9kbB9sMg9TK29Se0nXLgs6w29OL25FJgBRLB9RnB9vJqrBLB9hLgB6oqdBJgFHusBHqk5WKgK%3D##File:Coronation_of_Queen_Elizabeth_II_X.jpg){kind=link}
){kind=link}
){kind=link}
![[13]](https://amansaja.com/index.php?q=Mfv0Kfa6bO9DL21TL25NbZJXM2BTnqvXou5RKAKRJ2BVMu9rK2rOp3vFLgU6wqFRLAaDvABUntXiopnXnh9zMqzYoqrUp0dBLZvUnr8PzB8Qyr8OajiOp1dRK3vRJB9RLB9iL25HK3vFngB1Lr9xLgBTKh8ObAXQnQ%3D%3D##File:David_Michael_Bentle_16_09_2012_Rostov_on_Don_stadium_Olimp_2.jpg){kind=link}
