User talk:ChristianBier
Please leave a commentar on my User Talk
|
|
Why is this one not a copyvio? Please take a look at http://veenarawat.ca/ (which bears a copyright notice) - the image top right is clearly a crop of the image on Commons, so the Commons image presumably came from that site or its owners, and there is no evidence of release into the public domain. What am I missing here? – ukexpat (talk) 21:59, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
Copyvios form bmhd.cz
Hi. Do you have OTRS permission for these photos? I thought that permission is always necessary... I know bmhd.cz sites and before I added templates {{Copyvio}}, I asked admins of bmhd.cz and they didn't know about this... --Harold (talk) 23:00, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
- Not copyright violations, just missing permission. I tagged these files with {{No permission}}. This gives the user the chance to arrange the permission. Multichill (talk) 23:28, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
I still think, that it is copyright violations but OK, thanks. --Harold (talk) 23:40, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
Your recent deletions
Hi ChristianBier, you just deleted a lot of images I transferred from nlwp. Why are these files obvious copyright violations? Commons:Fan art is never obvious. Besides that you forgot to notify the uploader (=me) of the deletions. That's not very nice. Multichill (talk) 23:25, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
Your recent deletions II
Hello, I noticed you recently deleted a image of mine (Accept's logo) for copyright violation reasons. I understand your concern with such issues. But I'm a bit surprised with this decision because I can assure you the picture was taken by me. (from one of my personal item - a mirror with the logo). I don't know how to prove my good faith. Maybe I can shoot some other photographs following any of your suggestion, to prove the photographs were taken by me. Thanks for your attention. Greetings. 92.133.136.136 15:46, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
- Forgive me for commenting here, but I thought you might like a second opinion. You didn't log in or give the file name but File:Accept.jpg was deleted on January 21 by ChristianBier with the summary "copyright violation, see Commons:Licensing". It may be the file to which you are referring. Logos are nearly always protected. The only exception is if they are simply letters/geometric shapes with little creative content or if they are old, e.g., before 1925. Your photographs of subjects that is not protected by copyright are welcome. But photographs of logos are generally not allowed according to Commons:Licensing#Checklist. Walter Siegmund (talk) 17:41, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
- Ok then. I understand better. Thank you very much for taking time to explain. Greetings.
Spiegelverkehrt
Das Bild Fotothek df ps 0004895 Burgen ^ Sonstiges ^ Türme ^ Burgtürme.jpg ist spiegelverkehrt. Wie ist das Vorgehen in einem solchen Fall? Danke! --B80 (talk) 22:03, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
Miserable Failure.jpg
Hi, ChristianBier, you removed File:Miserable Failure.jpg and I don't understand why it was removed.
- The original is still online at http://www.flickr.com/photos/dannysullivan/369539947, licensed CC-BY. I think it is reasonable to assume that dannysullivan did take the two screenshots and made the composition. Anyway, those acts probable are not creative enough to obtain copyright.
- The screenshots show no copyrightable elements of the webbrowser (Commons:Screenshots). They are both of Google search results, in my opinion the Google wordmark is the most creative part of those screenshots, but File:Google wordmark.svg is also allowed.
- Google does not have the copyright for the text snippets (except possibly "Why these results?", but that seems too trivial too), yet copies them to almost all countries on earth. That doesn't necessarily mean they aren't covered by copyright, but google.com would make itself very vulnerable to lawsuits if the snippets
- The algoritm which produced the search results is protected by copyright, but the picture only shows some results of the algoritm.
Probably I am missing some part of the picture which is covered by copyright, but a small hint in the right direction would be appreciated. Erik Warmelink (talk) 14:48, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
My apologies for the previous attempt. I was editing a new section, and something went wrong. The browser cache still had the edit, but did not remember that I only edited a section, not the whole page. Erik Warmelink (talk) 14:53, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
- The Text which is shown at the search results is coverd by copyright. --ChristianBier (talk) 22:43, 21 April 2010 (UTC)