User talk:Courcelles/Archive 1

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to: navigation, search
Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Archive 1 Archive 2 →

TUSC token 5b6c7c56b49c778b487589e173f0ccfd

TUSC verification edit.

Hey !!

Amigo mil disculpas pero soy nuevo en wikipedia y YO SUBÍ ESE ARCHIVO Chris Colfer in the Teen Choice Awards 2010.jpg y me equivoqué en el copyright fue un error JUM (i was a mistaque with all reserved**) yo COMPRÉ esa imagen y con la compra el copyright también no sé quién seas pero `por favor entiende colega :/

Atte Neo ender http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Usuario:Neo_ender

You purchased the right to use the image, not the copyright to it, which are totally different things. You did not buy the right to grant new permissions to the image, which would require you having brought all rights to it, which is not offered for agency photos. (Pardon, mientras pueda leer en español, estoy muy mal de escribir en él.) Courcelles (talk) 06:57, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

2
Don't worry, my english is very bad jajajaja !! and well... cuando adquirí la imagen no decía nada acerca de copyright, I WROTE **ALL RIGHTS RESERVED** because I trought it was nice :/, sorry dude I was my mistaque
Atte Neo ender http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Usuario:Neo_ender

My Uploads

Hi Courcelles,

I'm still pretty new here and am not sure why my 60+ images have all been tagged for deletion. I've asked the photographer to send in an email permission (done) and the permissions on his Flickr account were adjusted to be the most general sort of Creative Commons license (in case that was the problem -- though they were always Creative Commons, but non-commercial, attribution).

I'm just not sure how to prevent all of the images from being deleted. This is labour intensive since it seems a bot has done this uniformly across everything I've uploaded, even though they are legitimate. Any help you can offer would be greatly appreciated! Many thanks!

-- Kathleen5454

Now I get to go and undo all these taggings. The fun life of a Wikimedia OTRS agent. Um, not. Everything I've looked at so far has been fine, and just needs a local reviewer to confirm what I'm seeing on Flickr. (With the Flickr tag changes, the OTRS e-mail really doesn't mean a whole lot, as permission is now verifiable without going into that system. Though I'm mentioning the ticket just in case) Courcelles (talk) 03:10, 4 March 2011 (UTC)


Courcelles -- you rock. Thanks so much. I've had the licenses changed on the two you flagged as still not having the correct CC license, so those should be fine now too. Thanks so much. Pulling my hair out on this end trying to figure out how to undo the deletion tags on all of those images, so I appreciate it. I'm still learning and picking up a bit of skills on this and Wikipedia each day. Thanks again. --Kathleen5454 (talk) 03:47, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm more of a Wikipedia user than here on Commons, but if you need help on WP, look me up at en:User talk:Courcelles and I'll do what I can to help. Once those two images process over, I'll close out the OTRS ticket. Can you check and see if any of your images are still nominated for deletion? Thanks. Courcelles (talk) 04:25, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Re: your comments

No, they were valid taggings at the time, but I don't find tag-bombing someone to be a best practice, either. You also applied a lot more tags than you gave Kathleen notification of here (which would have made my life easier, I'm still not sure I've gotten all of them.) I've also found two that are still on Flickr with non-commercial non-derivative licenses, File:PhotoShopCarnival.jpg and File:ProgressiveBloggersBBQ.jpg, and would need to be nominated for deletion if that is not changed. Courcelles (talk) 03:42, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Actually, a special explanatory message and one standard npd notice were carefully placed on the user's talk page, with a note that the other images in the series had the same problem, *instead of* cluttering the user's page with 60 identical boxes about the very same thing, like you would apparently have done, which would have been pointless and annoying. The single notice did work very well. On the other hand, each affected file description page must be tagged, something you seem to have a problem with for some unknown reason. A tag is placed on the file description page for the benefit of all users, to warn of the identified problem while we are hosting the file, until the problem gets fixed. It would be absurd to assume that an unsuspecting user viewing file "A" should magically guess that the information about it is to be found only on the description page of file "B". Each file page that requires a license or a warning relating to that file must visibly display it. That's what tags are for. They are also required on each page for helping the adequate subsequent maintenance and follow-up. So, yes, diligently doing all that boring work that you scorn *is* very much best practice. If you believe that this is what is called tag-bombing, you are mistaken. Don't assume either that we don't follow up. When you arrive when people are right in the middle of actively fixing the problem, if you want to help with completing the final step of the job, that's great. Sparing us the unwarranted negative comments about the steps already correctly done by other people would certainly be appreciated too. As for making your life easier and getting all the files, you can simply follow the list in the user's upload log and take the files in order one after the other. -- Asclepias (talk) 07:51, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
What I would have done is have gone to the user's talk page, and informed them of the problem; if that didn't get anywhere after a day or two, then tagged all sixty images. And then left a list on the user's talk page, as {{No permission since}} requires, by saying the author must be informed. "All the other uploads from the same source" doesn't help to reassure and guide a newer user. I don't scorn difficult work, I am however displeased when tagging and templating leaves confused users writing to OTRS, and we have to figure out what is going on, and what the problem is. When I arrived, no one was fixing the problem, no one was removing the deletion notices and reconciling the tags here with the tags on Flickr, and I don't think Kathleen5454 really understood what the problem even was, or knew how to fix it. Your actions were valid, but they could have been friendlier. Courcelles (talk) 09:07, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Help with uploaded picture...

Hi, I'm very new in editing wikipedia articles, actually I'm just helping a friend with her article for David L Boushey, she told me that we can use the picture from the website, but I have a lot of problems trying to understand all the requirements completing the form, so, if you can be more especific telling me what we have to add to the image description will be awesome, thanks a lot.

Hi, if she owns the copyright to the photo, then she can confirm that by e-mailing the volunteer response team. I have access to the system, so if you'll follow the instructions on that page I linked, and tell me you've done so, I'll sort it out. If she does NOT own the rights to the photo, then things get much more complicated- unless we have confirmed permission from the owner of the photo, then I'm afraid we simply can not keep it on the Commons, though you may be able to claim fair-use on Wikipedia itself. (That's another issue entirely; Commons cannot hold fair-use material, however some of the Wikimedia Foundation's projects, such as the English Wikipedia, have provisions and rules for hosting fair-use content locally.) Courcelles (talk) 07:12, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
Hello again, how I said before, we are new on this,so is a little complicated, but let see if we understood; next step: my friend will email David Boushey asking for permission to use that picture(thing that she did already but by phone), then he can reply to that email using the template in the page that you told me (the volunteer response team), then she forward that response from him to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org and we let you know. That is?, I hope so, if not, I don't know what to do, thanks a lot.
That's it, except that copyright of a photo almost always belongs to the photographer, and not the subject; which is what makes finding photos on the internet so very difficult. Courcelles (talk) 08:48, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
Ok, we will, I'll tell her about the photographer thing, by the way I didn't know about the Four "~", we learn something new every day, thanks... Vinko2000 (talk) 09:10, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Permission for photo

This has been mailed, but it's my first time and I'm covering my bases:

from    Glenn Specht <glenn@glennspecht.com>
to      permissions-commons@wikimedia.org
cc      Charlie Halpern-Hamu <charlie@danforthgreens.ca>
date    Sun, Apr 24, 2011 at 8:52 PM
subject permission
hide details 8:52 PM (14 minutes ago)
I hereby assert that I am the creator and/or sole owner of the exclusive copyright of WORK http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Adriana_Mugnatto-Hamu_inside_face-on_2010.jpg
I agree to publish that work under the free license http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Template:Cc-by-3.0.
I acknowledge that I grant anyone the right to use the work in a commercial product, and to modify it according to their needs, as long as they abide by the terms of the license and any other applicable laws.
I am aware that I always retain copyright of my work, and retain the right to be attributed in accordance with the license chosen. Modifications others make to the work will not be attributed to me.
I am aware that the free license only concerns copyright, and I reserve the option to take action against anyone who uses this work in a libelous way, or in violation of personality rights, trademark restrictions, etc.
I acknowledge that I cannot withdraw this agreement, and that the work may or may not be kept permanently on a Wikimedia project.
Glenn Specht
2011 April 24
*****************************************
Glenn Specht
グレン スペック
glenn@glennspecht.com
www.grsphoto.ca <-----Photos
www.glennspecht.com <------workshops, photos & Blogs
Hi, I've changed the tag from deletion to OTRS-pending. I won't process the ticket since I'm involved, but it is Ticket:2011042510000568. It'll be cleared in a week or so, but if anything happens, that number will help others figure things out. Courcelles (talk) 06:35, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Le ménestrel du Bon Dieu - old album cover photo/reproduction (1958-59)

Hi Courcelles: I have noticed that this photo/reproduction of old album cover "Le ménestrel du Bon Dieu" by Père Bernard is suggested by you for "deletion". As a new contributor since only early March 2011...I don't know why even though I understand fully the subject of "copyrights". This photo is part of a "personal collection" and I received "permission" to use it from one Bertrand Hervy, Val d'Oise, Ile de France (email: 2011-04-21).

I see the same deletion process & advice is happening (wikipedia) with other (main) published photo on Bernard de Brienne site (ie. père bernard petit format.jpg) which I also received "permission to use" (photo taken in 1949) from the Ordre des frères mineurs (email: Père Lionel Chagnon,ofm, secrétaire provincial des Franciscains 2011-03-21).

I am starting to find the Bernard de Brienne site not a "work in progress" but a "work in constant repetition" or "work in constant remake" based on Wikipedia questionable processes. Even though I fully respect and understand the "copyrights" delimma that every contributor faces on Wikipedia, it becomes less and less attractive for someone like me to put so much in trying to build something that will or should have informative value to others, especially to researchers for years to come.

What else can somebody do but to insure that copyrights are NOT being violated and that proper permissions are obtained from the relevant sources and authority! I hope you can clarify this for me, once and for all, because I am seriously rethinking my participation in Wikipedia. I hope you understand that based on our (ie. all participants) voluntary contributions, it simply does not make much sense to have work contributions questioned with suspicion... especially when the use of the material has all the permissions and "stamps of authority" required and supported by written communications (emails). Your response will tell me whether, as a participant to Wikipedia and other Wiki projects, whether my contributions are worth pursuing!--RaynaultM (talk) 12:14, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Well, how we proceed here is going to depend on a lot of things. First, what was this image, File:Le menestrel du Bon Dieu.jpg? It looks for all the world to me to be an album cover. In which case, we would have to have permission from the record company, as contracts likely made it their property. A photo of a two-dimensional object does not create a new copyright- it is what we call a derivative work, and to be hosted here, the original image must be available under a free license.
The central problem here is that you uploaded it as your "own work", which you have said here it is not- you have received permission to use it, but you are not the sole creator. If you do have the permission to the original work, that must be cleared through the OTRS response system. If you can explain how the image can be considered free, you should also make that explanation on Commons:Deletion requests/File:Le menestrel du Bon Dieu.jpg, as OTRS can be rather slow. I feel you might be better off talking to a native French speaker, as my French is rather rusty- if you'd rather write in French, please do so. Courcelles (talk) 06:45, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

FlickreviewR?

Hi Courcelles! I uploaded about five pictures from Flickr, out of which three have been validated. The rest two say the license is undetermined. What might be the problem? The images are File:Mariah Carey One Sweet Day Madison Square 1995.jpg and File:Mariah Carey I'll Be There Michael Jackson MM 2009.jpg. Novice7 (talk) 09:59, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

The bot, as good as it is, is rather "stupid"- if you do anything to the images at all before uploading them, it won't recognise it. The first one, you changed the orientation before upload, the second, I think you modified an every so slight touch. Best practice would be to let the bot handle the original photo, and then upload what modifications you need on-top of that version- the bot typically only takes a few moments. Courcelles (talk) 10:51, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
Oh, sorry. I changed the orientation of the first image, but I didn't do anything to the second. Maybe it's because the screenname and username of the Flickr user are different? Thank you explaining my mistake. I'll upload the original photograph from now. Thank you again Courcelles. Novice7 (talk) 11:02, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
Huh. The resolution on the second one is an exact match, so I have no idea what the bot was thinking there- it put out a "size not found" error. (The Flickrreviewer bot puts its error messages in the edit summary, so if it does something you don't expect, always look there.) Courcelles (talk) 11:18, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
Thank you so much for the tip. Man, I have a lot to learn about Commons/Wikipedia. Novice7 (talk) 12:17, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
As do I. If you don't learn something new here every day, you didn't get much done :) Courcelles (talk) 23:01, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Hola

Me entero en estos momentos de unos mensajes que tengo en mi discusión, acerca de unos posibles borrados. Para enviar el e-mail con una copia del permiso a OTRS (permissions-commons@wikimedia.org), tiene que ser algo firmado y sellado o una autorización de los autores. Porque las imágenes de ORADORES DE LAS AMÉRICAS, tengo una autorización pero no esta sellada.--Riconks (talk) 03:37, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Rename a file?

Hello Courcelles! I uploaded a file and accidentally put 2011 instead of 2010 (its title). Can you rename this file to Flickr Martina McBride performing in 2010.jpg? Thanks. Novice7 (talk) 17:53, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

I don't have file moving privileges here, sorry. Courcelles (talk) 19:05, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
It's okay. Also, please do tell me if I become a nuisance :) Novice7 (talk) 04:15, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

About the file Gangadhara Meher Odia poet.jpg

This is found in the Official portal of Bargarh district of Odisha state, India. And the same file is also been uploaded in the English Wikipedia as PD. As it's a government portal {{PD-India}} template would be suitable for this. The author died in 1924, so this artwork is long after that and released in a Indian government portal.-- ସୁଭପାSubha PaUtter2me! 08:18, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

First, you'll note just where Template:PD-IndiaGov redirects to- works of the Indian Government and the Union's states are not PD at creation. Second, if age means that {{PD-India}} applies, why did you not explain that at upload, and tag it as such? You tagged it as {{Attribution}}, which if the PD claim is correct, is a false licence. Moreover, I see no proof of the age of that file- and have therefore sent the enwiki version up for speedy deletion as lacking permission. Courcelles (talk) 08:44, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
Also note that though en:Gangadhar Meher died in 1924, we need proof the drawing is from that era to use it under a PD tag. The copyright of the drawing is entirely independent of the life of the subject. Courcelles (talk) 08:45, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

File:뉴 초콜릿폰(윤아).jpg

Hello Courcelles! I would like to inquire about the file name change for this image. I understand that English is not favoured in Commons as it is a multilingual project, but the reason I would like to apply for the rename now is per rule number six of the file rename guideline (harmonize file names of a set of images) because there is one image of the SNSD band with a name in the Latin script (see File:Jessica(SNSD).jpg). I totally appreciate your opinion because I'm confused. Sorry :P. Really appreciate your help again, thanks! ^^, Yours faithfully, Kotakkasut. 12:06, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Criteria six is designed to harmonise a set of images so they can be used more easily in templates, it's not designed to rename images so that media depicting the same subjects is named in a similar fashion, note that criteria six says, "harmonize file names of a set of images (so that only one part of all names differs) to ease their usage in templates (e.g. diagram symbols, scans of pages of a book, maps)" Without a specific purpose such as that, we don't rename images just for uniformity. Courcelles (talk) 12:46, 15 August 2011 (UTC)