User:D-Kuru/archiv/dr/2007

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to: navigation, search
Attention niels epting.svg
This page is an archiv! You aren't allowed to edit this page.
If you want to talk to me use my dicussion page.
Evolution-tasks-not.png

You deleted my bookcover[edit]

You just deleted the file Caballero.jpeg that I uploaded, before I even had a chance to type in a licence. I uploaded it with the template {{bookcover}}, which I thought was a valid Fair Use licence, and wrote an explanation about what article it was going to be used in (Lise Drougge on Swedish Wikipedia). All for nothing, apparently. Was I really supposed to figger out an alternative licence, type it in, and save, all within 2 seconds? Please advise what you would like me to do. Lise Drougge is the creator of the cover art. Would it be acceptable if she uploaded the image herself and released it under the GFDL? On the other hand, how could she do that without compromising the anonymity of her user account..? Bishonen 18:12, 26 May 2007 (UTC).

I'm sure that you didn't read that, what you should do, before you upload any file.
In the 4th line; page Commons:Licensing: "The Wikimedia Commons does not accept fair use"
If you set {{bookcover}} you will include Template:Bookcover which is a redirect to Template:Fair use. I'm also nearly sure that you had no look at the page after uploading, because the first line says "This page or file may meet the criteria for speedy deletion.". In the second line you'll find the beginning of the sentence "Even if the contributor claims this media to be fair use, it is incompatible with the Commons licensing policy as fair use claims are not permitted here."
I think if the author of this file uploads this picture that shouldn't be a problem. You should do an edit in the village pump, because there they can help you with the licence you should choose.
PS: "All for nothing, apparently." Have you ever had a look at the germen wikipedia? There is no fair use at all and there are many articles about books.
--D-Kuru 19:27, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Hi![edit]

bitte stelle die Logos wieder her, die ich eben von de.wp auf commons übertragen habe. Da sie keine Schöpfungshöhe haben und mit der richtigen Lizenz hochgeladen habe sind sie konform. Zu einem Vergleichbaren Fall habe ich vor kurzem erst mit einem deiner Kollegen gesprochen. Naja, jeder macht mal nen Fehler, besonders am Anfang. Grüße, __ ABF __ 19:48, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Link wär auch nicht schlecht. Dann muss ich mir das Zeug nicht wieder rausuchen
Soweit ich weiß, ist aber jedes komerzielle Logo fair use und damit bei commons nicht erlaubt, egal wie einfach es ist.
Das steht übrigens bei der Lizenz dabei: "Note: trademark restrictions usually apply. Logos can be registered as design patents for a copyright-like protection."
"Naja, jeder macht mal nen Fehler, besonders am Anfang." o.O lol ^^
--D-Kuru 20:07, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
Edit:
Bitte zeig mir mal deinen edit, wo du "vor kurzem erst mit einem [m]deiner Kollegen gesprochen" hast. Ich hab das bei deinen edits beim schnell durchschauen jetzt nicht gefunden.
Übrigens heiß´t es in der deutschen Wikipedia " Diese Datei oder Bestandteile davon stellen ein Logo (z.B. ein Firmenlogo) oder einen anderen markenrechtlich bzw. namensrechtlich geschützten Gegenstand dar.", was hier unter fair use fält und somit verboten ist.
--D-Kuru 20:16, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
Die Logos sind beide wiederhergestellt worden siehe hier und hier. Meine Informationen beziehe ich aus dem IRC, desshalb kannst du sie nicht sehen. Viele Grüße, __ ABF __ 08:15, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
Aso. Und das die Logos wiederhergestellt sind wusste ich schon, weil ich eines davon hergestellt habe ;-)
--D-Kuru 09:39, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
Na denn is ja alles in Butter. Auf gute Zusammenarbeit und Happy Admin nachträglich, __ ABF __ 15:57, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Deletion of Image:New_York_1999_bruce_lee-perspcorr.jpg[edit]

This is a file that is available on Commons and was confirmed there: Image:New_York_1999_bruce_lee.jpg If you had read the description before deleting the image then you'd have noticed that I only corrected the perspective of that image. --chris 14:27, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

1) Du kannst auch in deutsch schreiben und musst somit weder dir noch mir die unnötige Mühe antuen ;-)
2) Ich hab die Beschreibung sehr wohl gelesen, allerdings ist dieses Bild auf Flickr als {{Non comercial}} eingestuft und somit, aufgrund der "Freien Inhalte", nicht auf Commons zugelassen. Als "eigenes Bild" kann man es auch nicht einstufen, da (laut unter der auf Flickr veräffentlichten Lizenz) "If you alter, transform, or build upon this work, you may distribute the resulting work only under the same or similar license to this one." gilt. Selbe Rechte heißt in dem Fall, dass auch das Noncommercial übertragen wird und somit (wie schon erwähnt) auf Commons nicht raufgeladen werden darf.
--D-Kuru 14:39, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
Dann nocheinmal deut(sch/lich): Das Bild ist bereits auf Commons, da es zunächst unter einer anderen Lizenz auf Flickr veröffentlicht wurde, was von User:Dodo bestätigt wurde. Dadurch ergibt sich für Commons weiterhin das Recht, das Bild unter der alten Lizenz, CC-by-2.0, zu nutzen, da es unter deren Bedingungen hier hochgeladen wurde. (revocation of CC licenses)
Ich habe also Deinen Löschantrag aus dem Original Bild wieder entfernt, da er nicht gerechtfertigt ist und werde das korrigierte Bild jetzt nocheinmal hochladen. Ich werde dabei ausschließlich Bezug auf die vorhandene CC-by Version auf den Commons nehmen, um ähnlicher Verwirrung vorzubeugen.
Das System zur Bestätigung der Lizenz durch die "trusted users" existiert ja gerade aus diesem Grund, daß sich die Lizenz auf Flickr ändern kann, aber bindend die Lizenz im Moment des Uploads ist.
Zitat aus dem Lizenz-Text: "3. License Grant. Subject to the terms and conditions of this License, Licensor hereby grants You a worldwide, royalty-free, non-exclusive, perpetual (for the duration of the applicable copyright) license to exercise the rights in the Work as stated below:" [1] --chris 21:23, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
Da ich mich auf Flickr Nüsse auskenne, ist es auch nicht verwunderlich, dass ich das noch nicht kannte. Man lernt eben nie aus...
Gibt es bei Flickr eigentlich wie bei Wikipedia/Commons eine Art History, die man einsehen kann, damit sowas nicht mehr vorkommt?
Wenn du einen Löschantrag entfernst, dann kümmere dich bitte auch um die Seite bei den Löschanträgen, sonst ist das Bild irgendwann wieder weg. (In dem Fall habs ih schon erledigt)
Wenn du noch 2 min länger mit dem hochladen gewartet hättest, hätte ich es wiederhergestellt ;-)
--D-Kuru 21:50, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
Nein die History gibt es nicht, daher der ganze Aufwand mit den trusted user Bapperln.
Aber im Rahmen meiner Recherchen in Sachen Copyright bin ich auf ein anderes Problem gestoßen: Im Commons-Chat wurde ich von einem (C)-Experten darauf hingewiesen, daß der Urheber des Photos mit der freien Lizenz eine Urheberrechtsverletzung begeht. Das Photo zeigt ja ein Wandgemälde, welches höchstwahrscheinlich nicht frei lizenziert ist. Panoramafreiheit gilt weiterhin nicht für 2D-Werke. Das heißt also der gute Tom Harpel hatte nicht das Recht zur Veröffentlichung unter CC, womit die ganze Lizenzierung hinfällig ist :-(
Mit anderen Worten, mein ganzes Tam-Tam war umsonst und würdest Du bitte beide Werke als Copyright-Verletzung schnellöschen? *entschuldigend grinsend* --chris 22:14, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
Kann ich machen, aber damit die ganze mühe nicht umsonst war könnte man überlegen o man das nicht doch einfach umgehen kann...
Eine Möglichkeit das zu "umgehen" wäre, das Bild so zu lassen wie es ist und nie wieder ein Wort darüber zu verlieren. Bis das ein User wieder findet gibts das Gebäude nicht mehr und es wird aufgrund des hohen Künstlerischen Wertes als "Public Domain" eingestuft.
Es ist zwar keine richtige Lösung, aber was ich täglich auf Commons an hochgeladenen Bildern seh ist auch nicht richtig. Also who cares...
--D-Kuru 00:10, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Image:Rorschach1.jpg[edit]

Can you plase explain this, (on) please.

  • Image:Rorschach1.jpg (Copyright to image is held by Hogrefe & Huber Publishers. See http://www.hhpub.com, and go to Rorschach Test)

That is a public domain image, more than 70 years old image, how Hogrefe & Huber Publishers can have the copyright?


Here there is an Italian discussion on the topic. Rorschach died in 1922 and he was the author of that image. --DracoRoboter 21:42, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

The content of this page was "{{copyvio|Copyright to image is held by Hogrefe & Huber Publishers. See http://www.hhpub.com, and go to Rorschach Test}}". As you can see, I only copied the text, because I thought this user knows more than I do.
You can ask Ward3001 why he set {{copyvio}}. I only deleted this page, because Ward3001 set copyvio.
--D-Kuru 22:17, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

OK, I'll ask him. Thanks. Anyway, as it:admin, I think that yours is not a good answer, not a serious one at least. --DracoRoboter 22:26, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Commons is a little bit different ;-)
Edit: What do you think I should write instead?
--D-Kuru 22:30, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

I presume that you have to know why you do what you do... anyway maybe commons is really different. That's why I think that is better if we close it. Is useless and without control. --DracoRoboter 22:37, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Add: if nobody will answer my question I'll propose your desysop. --DracoRoboter 08:00, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
Again: The answer to your question why I have deleted that picture is, because it was in the category:copyvio. I know Rorschach and his test, but how should I know that this is no copyvio?
What does "I'll propose your desysop" mean? I never heard the word desysop anytime before.
PS: Did you ever thought about uploading that file again? You can add a little sentence like "Because the author of this picture (Rorschach) died in 1922 therby this picture is public domain." so that it is more clear
--D-Kuru 09:07, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
"Desysop" heißt auf de-WP "De-Admin". Mein Tip: Schalt in Sachen löschen einen Gang zurück und lösche nur etwas, wo Du Dir 100% sicher bist, daß es sich um einen Copyright-Verstoß handelt, ganz egal wer irgendwo irgendeine Vorlage eingestellt hat. --chris 15:40, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
k, hab ich mir eh schon vorgenommen ^^ --D-Kuru 19:36, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Now I think you know what "de-sysop" means. Anyway I won't upload nothing on commons I think I explained why. Someone other did, I wonder if you'll delete again because "momma said". --DracoRoboter 18:28, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

No, you didn't explained why you "won't upload nothing on commons".
I wonder how you could become an admin. Did you ever heard about Aiuto:Wikiquette - I think you should as an it.wikipedia admin. (Not only because of your little edit where you changed "I think you'll delete again because "momma said"" to "I wonder if you'll delete again because "momma said"")
I know that this is also contra that what on the german wikiquette page is written, but: You behave like a little child!
You never did an edit on the file's page (not to mention that you didn't upload any of the 3 fileversions) but you react as if you were the author of that image. Why does the uploader (C++ que vos) says nothing?
From my point of view this discussion has lost its sense. So it's over now.
--D-Kuru 19:36, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Don't be angry, you'll become so ugly... --DracoRoboter 20:09, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Look who's talking Face-wink.svg
--D-Kuru 20:56, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Image:Piano San Giovanni rotondo 1.jpg[edit]

Hi, I had shoot in site the image you have deleted. I don't understand your motivation: copyvio - content was: "Renzo Piano is a living artist.". Answer me on my itWiki talkpage, please. --Archenzo 20:50, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

"copyvio - content was: "Renzo Piano is a living artist."" means first of all that another user set {{copyvio}} and wrote the folloing text. It means secondly that the work of which you took a photo doesn't belong to you. I would compare it to fair use. However, there is no fair use on Commons allowed.
You can ask G.dallorto what was really meant by that.
--D-Kuru 22:31, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Rorschach1.jpg[edit]

I have no idea who dracoroboter is, maybe he's just another user who does belive in the importance of the knowledge for above a legal tecnicism.

I did not reply to you before because I don't check on my account very often. I noticed today that the image had been removed so I uploaded it again.

Now, about the image, if it's true that it is copyrighted, I think that this is a special case of copyright violation, it's an ethical problem about violating or not an unfair law. If someone takes a picture of the Eiffel tower and doesn't want to share it, then it's wrong to steal it, because the Eiffel tower is there and you can take your own pictures. But in the case of the Rorschach inkblots, any image would be considered a copyright violation, so there is absolutely no way of leting the people see it without violating the copyright. Does that that seem fair or ethic to you? Not leaving any posibility of accesing them? I think that goes against the spirit of wikipedia and the idea of a democracy. C++ que vos

I don't know what was really meant by that what Psy guy wrote.
I'm not sure if you can protect a picture, because of ethic problems. I asked Psy guy what was really meant by that. After I know what he wanted to say, I would contribute to the Commons:Help desk or to the Commons:Village pump (I know what the text he wrote is about, but why "Ethical Standards to report this image").
--D-Kuru 22:20, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

For the sake of clarity: if that image is copyrighted have to be deleted. Dot. The point is that I'm not so sure is copyrighted. --DracoRoboter 22:46, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

That's what I said anyway, didn't I --D-Kuru 23:38, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm glad of it. My english is not so good, I'm sorry, maybe I didn't get it. The only point I stressed about you is that is not accettable that an admin didn't know why do what he do.

As you can see, I only copied the text, because I thought this user knows more than I do. You can ask Ward3001 why he set {{copyvio}}. I only deleted this page, because Ward3001 set copyvio. - D-Kuru

OK?

--DracoRoboter 09:36, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

I really wonder who you became an admin! Maybe you're right, BUT (and I know that this is agains Wikiquette) I think an admin should also know when it's time to shut the fuck up. You're only purpose - seems to me - is to disturb and bother me. The image exist and you keep on talking as if that image would be the whole world I deleted and not wanted to undelet this image. Moreover: I didn't ask you! I asked C++ que vos why he/she didn't said anything and not you! So there is no need for your answer to a question I didn't ask you.
Did you had a look at C++ que vos's page? Well, ... no. A text there says "I hate impersonal notes, so I just wanted to tell you that as a member of the American Psychological Association I am bound by the Ethical Standards to report this image. -- Psy guy 20:59, 23 February 2007 (UTC)" (try to think about the meaning)
So I think that I'm right that this knew/knows a liitle bit more about the "Ethical Standards" than I (and also to mention: Than you did and still do!).
Note: You aren't allowed to contribute to this userpage anymore. You are allowed to contribute under a new subtitel (new image or page or whatever), but you aren't allowed to contribute to this image talk any longer and to keep on bothering me. If you keep on editing, I'll delet every edit you'll make.
--D-Kuru 11:29, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Image:Logo-bip-efrei.png[edit]

Mister, I would like to ask why you have deleted the image Logo-bip-efrei.png ? What can I do ? --Rousseaj 15:56, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

First I have to delete the page, because I don't lnow any other way to see the file again I've deleted.
The picture is a logo. A logo is copyrighted. If you would upload that logo you would have to upload it under a fair use licence. As you can see from the {{fair use}} fair use is "incompatible with the Commons licensing policy".
Some logos are allowed, because they are textlogos. There is a special licence for such logos: {{PD-textlogo}} However, your logog isn't a textlogo in anyway.
Please note two important things:
1) If you make a screenshot of a logo doesn't mean that you are the author of that picture, because you haven't created the content (the logo) of that picture.
2) Because you aren't the author of that file you can not upload this file uunder {{self|GFDL|cc-by-sa-2.5,2.0,1.0}} (not mentioned that you aren't allowed to upload any fair use file)
--D-Kuru 18:22, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
I try again to put the file in wikimedia with the fair use licence. I hope it's going to be good !
--Rousseaj 21:34, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
You didn't got the crucial point ^^
Second clause in the second line of Commons:Licensing: "The Wikimedia Commons does not accept fair use"
I'm sorry for you, but as admin I have to delete fair use. Sorry again
--D-Kuru 23:09, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Deletion of Image:Logo Gran Maraña.jpg[edit]

I find no reason for the deletion of the image "Logo_gran_maraña.jpg", since I had already written it was my own (self-created) and it does not violate any third party rights. Please, would you mind undeleting it? Thanks.--Jmorbla 10:01, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

If you don't want to have any pictures deleted you have to use a correct licence and a correct sorce. You have written a source, but I can't be sure that this isn't a copyrighted logo (especially when the filename includes logo). Please give a description.
All you wrote is
{{Information
|Description=
|Source=self-made
|Date=
|Author= Jmorbla
}}
Please note that even you've drawn the logo it is still copyrighted. So the permission "Yes, screenshot is taken by myself." is not acceptable, because you didn't create the contet of the image.
I will undelet the picture, but be sure to use a correct licence. AND: If it turnes out that it is a copyrighted logo (again: it is not important if you've made a screenshot or just uploaded it from another webpage) I have to delete it.
--D-Kuru 12:21, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your help, I have talked with the person who created the logo (he has no account in commons) and he agrees to publish it under a Creative Commons license; the image is not copyrighted, you can trust me, but if you ever want to check it yourself, you can contact its creator (Ismael García) at lagranmarana@gmail.com.--Jmorbla 15:02, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

I corrected the filedescriptoon so that it's commonised ;-)
If it's no tradmarked logo it's OK for me...
--D-Kuru 16:14, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Image deletion (David Ortega)[edit]

Hello D-Kuru! I don't understand the reason why to remove the picture Image:David_Ortega.jpg. According to the licence of 20 minutos we can use their photos while they are not signed by Agencias, Reuters, Efe, Europa Press, Korpa, Atlas, France Press, AP, Lanetro, Meteotemp, TPI or J.M. Nieto. So this picture, as well as a lot of other ones signed by Sergio González or Jorge París can be used.

--JMPerez 18:10, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

As you can sse there is/was no deletion talk page.
It was a mistake of mine and I thought that I had removed the deletion request template.
Thanks for noting; now ✓ Done
--D-Kuru 00:19, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Image:Kongo.jpg[edit]

Hi, I would like to ask why you have deleted the image Kongo.jpg ? After having often read {{PD-Japan-oldphoto}}, did you delete image? Please return the image. Jnn

If you have a look at an older version of the licence you'll see that this image was licenced under a fair use clause. Because there is no fair use allowed on Commons I have to delete it.
However: undeleted
--D-Kuru 13:53, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Image removal[edit]

Please explain your actions on removing Image:Konohagakure Symbol.svg in favour of Image:Workgroup Naruto.svg. The deleted image is:

  • of cleaner and better quality than the alternative,
  • is almost four times smaller in bytes, and just as infinitely scalable (SVG) as the alternative,
  • has a name that makes more sense and reflects the image contents better than the alternative,
  • has clear and verifiable license status (the alternative has no source specified)

Besides all that, you did not even contact me as the uploader (and creator) of the image you deleted. I noticed its absense accidentally because the corresponding image gallery was broken. This is not how things are supposed to be done: I spend my own time on making better images for Wikimedia Commons, and I expect at least a notification when you decide to throw them away. --spider 22:05, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

I deleted the picture, because it was the higher resoluted picture of two. (Image:Konohagakure Symbol.svg: 130x100; Image:Workgroup Naruto.svg: 320x240)
Somewhere (I think it is Commons:Licensing or a subpage) is written that the pictures should be as much high resoluted as possible.
Edit:
I found it: On Commons:Project scope under "Wikimedia Commons is a common central media repository of all Wikimedia projects": The quality of files should be as high as possible
--D-Kuru 01:26, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
If you think the name is clearer, upload it again under the new name.
Allthought you've drawn the picture I'm not sure if it is a {{copyvio}} (maybe some kind of a trademarked symbol...)
My opinion: If it is not it is {{PD-ineligible}} -> Not really a source needed.
Because you set {{duplicate}} I thought that you would have a look at it or at least to enable the email conntacting service...
I, as user, thank you for trying to upload as much good images as possible...
about the alleged wasted time: I can tell you a quite long story about deleting only pictures which are clearly a copyvio (today's clearest case: A screenshot of the Spongebobseries) - not mentioned duplicate pictures which engulf (as you can read) much more time - and this story would beat all 7 Harry Potter Books and all Lord of the Ring and Star Wars scrips very easily...
Nobody asked since yet and won't ask me ever... Being an admin is not as easy as many users think...^^
hf --D-Kuru 01:21, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
  1. The rule is about high quality, not high resolution. My version is much closer to the original, so it is (arguably) of better quality. Resolution arguments are obviously not applicable to vector images: they are infinitely scalable which means you can resize them to a million pixels wide without losing the quality. For example, here's one picture in its actual size: Image:Takigakure Symbol.svg and here's it scaled up: 800px
  2. I will not upload it again, I do not participate in the game of "submit and delete" when users should keep on trying to do something good and avoid being hunted by deletionists admins. You had the power and time to remove it, you should have the power and time to restore it.
  3. The symbol is not trademarked (it has been used by other mangakas without consequences), and the work is not ineligible - someone had to draw it in vector, and that someone must be acknowledged in the way his or her license asks to. My versions were received with much joy and gratitude in Naruto Wikia and at LJ community of that topic - there were and there are no better alternatives (yet).
  4. I didn't say being an admin is easy. It is hard, but it does not mean you have a leisure of doing it sloppy just because it's hard. I am an admin on six different wiki sites, two of them being internationally used Wikias, you don't have to tell me a story of licenses and differences between self-made SVGs and screencaps. --spider 22:00, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
add 1) I admit that I didn't know yet that you can resize an svg image after it had been saved as a document.
add 2) You wouldn't get it if you would guess how often I heard that seperated parts: You, the innocent contributer who just wanted to have fun upload some nice pictures and so on... And I: The bad admin who's only purpose in this world is to bother you - who's only purpose is to create reasons out of nothing to delete only your pictures - and bla bla bla... (I didn't write it but I also could write a good story about "Deleting Admins as new Hitlers" - But I saved your time by omiting it...)
add 3) You find on subsides of en:Naruto many pictures which are used without consequences, but they are still copyrighted... It isn't not trademarked, because some mangakas used it without geting into trouble... And it isn't not ineligible for copyright, because somebody had to drew it. Also Image:14-segment.png drew somebody, but it is {{PD-ineligible}}, because you only see some stupid lines hanging around somewhere in the picture.
add 4) Well I didn't know that fact yet. How could I...?
As my experience with Drakorobot told it is useless to discuss the fact of a deletion here...
I created a request for your picture in the Village pump, because that seems the best to me... - see it's entry
--D-Kuru 01:23 23 August 2007