User talk:Rrburke

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
(Redirected from User talk:Dutch Uncle)
Jump to: navigation, search

TUSC token 85a83f997215c6e41f075e4f3a811e9a[edit]

I am now proud owner of a TUSC account!

Sports venues in Toronto[edit]

That is a good point, and one that hadn't occured to me when I removed Category:Stadiums and arenas in Toronto from Category:Buildings and structures in Toronto. You're right, of course, that the sports venue category can, conceivably contain a number of subcats and files pertaining to venues that are not necessarily buildings.--skeezix1000 (talk) 19:09, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Sports venues in Toronto[edit]

That is a good point, and one that hadn't occured to me when I removed Category:Stadiums and arenas in Toronto from Category:Buildings and structures in Toronto. You're right, of course, that the sports venue category can, conceivably contain a number of subcats and files pertaining to venues that are not necessarily buildings.--skeezix1000 (talk) 19:09, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Category:Animal distribution maps[edit]

Thanks my friend for helping me on this cat.
Could you also verify if the taxon category is present on the image ?
Thanks a lot again. Cheers Liné1 (talk) 06:13, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Hi, Liné1. Thanks for your note. I'll remember to do that. Rrburke (talk) 22:18, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

TUSC token 1709b262a85db713d3d8457a153a3177[edit]

I am now proud owner of a TUSC account!


File:Ph seal quirino.svg[edit]

Commons-emblem-issue.svg File:Ph seal quirino.svg has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue.
Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!


Afrikaans | العربية | Беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | Català | Čeština | Dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | Zazaki | Ελληνικά | English | Esperanto | Español | Eesti | فارسی | Suomi | Français | Galego | עברית | Magyar | Bahasa Indonesia | Íslenska | Italiano | 日本語 | 한국어 | Македонски | മലയാളം | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | Norsk nynorsk | Norsk bokmål | Occitan | Polski | Português | Português do Brasil | Română | Русский | Slovenčina | Slovenščina | Српски / srpski | Svenska | Türkçe | Tiếng Việt | 中文 | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−

--Bluemask (talk) 04:40, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Renaming[edit]

User:Foroa seems to be the current main advocate for a "narrow" use of renaming. Discuss it with him, or on Commons talk:File renaming, or on Commons:Village pump, or on the general admin policy discussion page, I guess. AnonMoos (talk) 19:55, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Trunk Archive[edit]

Hi RrBourke,

I am writing on behalf of Trunk Archive.

We represent photographers, and have been trying to broaden Wikipedia's information to include us on the pages of our photographers, and to be able to list the photographers we represent on our Wikipedia page. Originally, my boss hired some interns who did not know what they were doing. It is part of my job to clean up their mess.

I have been extensively reading Wikipedia:Conflict of Interest and I understand that Wikipedians are strongly discouraged from editing articles related to themselves or their organization. I respect Wikipedia's mission, and would not want to contribute anything to Wikipedia that I did not feel was worthy of being a part of this center of public knowledge, that was biased, self-promoting, and not generally useful information.

I would really appreciate if you would engage in a discussion with me about why Trunk Archive is different from Wikipedia:Getty Images, Inc. or Wikipedia:Corbis Corporation. Internationally we are known for our photographers and the high caliber of work we represent. We have a roster that is impressive, and include Wikipedia:Philip-Lorca diCorcia, Wikipedia:Bruce Weber, and Wikipedia:Inez van Lamsweerde and Vinoodh Matadin among many others.

As I wrote in a previous post on your talk page, we function in a similar way to a gallery.

We want to be on our artists pages, much like Wikipedia:David Zwirner is linked to Wikipedia:Philip-Lorca DiCorcia, and Wikipedia:The Collective Shift is linked to Inez and Vindoodh. Their photographs are available for people to look at within our archive for free. Today, many people find out about artist through finding their work on the internet. If people want to see 15 pages (over 1,100 images) of Inez and Vinoodh's work, having Trunk Archive linked to their Wikipedia would offer the public a chance to see this archive.

I have many other thoughts on this matter, but I don't want to take up too much of your time at this moment. Would you please enter into a discussion with me? In the spirit of Wikipedia, please present me with the opportunity to clarify my case.

Thank you.

Xmraox (talk) 17:55, 2 December 2010 (UTC)Carly

Trunk Archive (extended)[edit]

Hi, Rrburke.

Thank you for getting in touch with me. I suppose the first place to start is to clarify why there were multiple accounts. My company hires interns, and one of their roles has been to update the Wikipedia pages of our photographers. The link to our website is not intended as advertising - as I wrote in my previous message, it opens up the artists' archives to the public. Many of our artists did not previously allow their archives to be public, so this is a special thing that is useful for the larger web community. The public, including many students, can learn about our photographers in a way that Google Images cannot provide.

I apologize that some of the interns were misguided in how they chose to post, and initially, the company did not learn about Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not. This has tarnished our reputation and created an obstacle to our mission, which is to let the public know that the archives exist. They are free for anyone to look at. This is within the intentions of the Wikipedia mission - to make information widely available and free. Our information is images.

Could you also please consider my point that we function similarly to a gallery? Please let me know your thoughts on this matter.

We don't want to add more links to our photographers, we just want to clear up our Wikipedia page, and add some more links to prove our notability.

Thank you again for taking the time to engage with me.

Xmraox (talk) 19:21, 8 December 2010 (UTC)Xmraox

File:Alfred The Great penny.jpg[edit]

Apologies, but I've flagged this file for deletion as it's an image of a 3D object and therefore may still be in copyright under US law. See [1].

Hi, Hallucegenia. No need to apologize. Probably the right call, especially if that's the One True Opinion's view. Whoa, didn't know he wasn't the One True Opinion anymore. Guess I live under a rock. Anyway, cheers and no problem! Rrburke (talk) 20:41, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

File:Alfred The Great penny.jpg[edit]

Pay attention to copyright
File:Alfred The Great penny.jpg has been marked as a possible copyright violation. Wikimedia Commons only accepts free content—that is, images and other media files that can be used by anyone, for any purpose. Traditional copyright law does not grant these freedoms, and unless noted otherwise, everything you find on the web is copyrighted and not permitted here. For details on what is acceptable, please read Commons:Licensing. You may find Commons:Copyright rules useful. You can ask questions about Commons policies in Commons:Help desk.

The file you added has been deleted. If you believe that the deletion was not in accordance with policy, you may request undeletion.

Wikimedia Commons takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.


Afrikaans | العربية | Asturianu | Azərbaycanca | Беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | Български | Català | Čeština | Dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | Zazaki | Ελληνικά | English | Español | فارسی | Suomi | Français | Galego | עברית | Magyar | Հայերեն | Italiano | 日本語 | 한국어 | Македонски | മലയാളം | Malti | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | Norsk nynorsk | Norsk bokmål | Polski | Português | Português do Brasil | Română | Русский | Slovenčina | Slovenščina | Svenska | ไทย | Türkçe | Tiếng Việt | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−

Hallucegenia (talk) 13:12, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

File:Alfred The Great penny.jpg[edit]

Commons-emblem-issue.svg File:Alfred The Great penny.jpg has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue.
Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!


Afrikaans | العربية | Беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | Català | Čeština | Dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | Zazaki | Ελληνικά | English | Esperanto | Español | Eesti | فارسی | Suomi | Français | Galego | עברית | Magyar | Bahasa Indonesia | Íslenska | Italiano | 日本語 | 한국어 | Македонски | മലയാളം | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | Norsk nynorsk | Norsk bokmål | Occitan | Polski | Português | Português do Brasil | Română | Русский | Slovenčina | Slovenščina | Српски / srpski | Svenska | Türkçe | Tiếng Việt | 中文 | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−

Sreejith K (talk) 18:51, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Category:Nudity and sexuality-related deletion requests[edit]

Hi. Please don't add this category directly, instead add the following to a deletion request: {{subst:nsdr}}. That way it gets a timestamp (so category sorts by last edit), and also it is noincluded so the daily DR pages don't show in the category. Thanks. -mattbuck (Talk) 02:12, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Will do; thanks for the info. Rrburke (talk) 03:19, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Boogie Nights Image[edit]

The Official Osmond page http://osmond.com/boogie-nights-the-70s-musical-osmonds/ grants a license for the image. Is there something that is missing? —Preceding unsigned comment added by WhatIfWeCould (talk • contribs)

Hi, WhatIfWeCould. Was the license recently added to the page? When I visited the site, the only notice I could find was "© 2012 The Osmond Family". At any rate, it's fine now.
A small point: despite the name similarity, the Creative Commons licenses are not actually created by or affiliated with Wikimedia Commons; we just use them. For that reason, if you have any affiliation with the Osmonds site, consider revising the license notice so that it tracks back to the license on the Creative Commons website (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/), which has the text of the license, rather than to Wikimedia Commons. Even better would be to use their license selector at http://creativecommons.org/choose/, which will compose an html license notice that can just be dropped right into the page.
Let me know if you need any help. --Rrburke (talk) 15:01, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

File:AhuYagtu.jpg[edit]

As Elmalma Brand Communication [2], we are in charge of the digital content management of Ahu Yağtu. The necessary permissions will be sent to the relevant email addresses. (as stated on the talk page of the file: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File_talk:AhuYagtu.jpg)

We would like stress that the permissions will be sent in 1-2 days. Please do not delete this file.

Thank you for your consideration. Elmauser (talk) 15:21, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Hi and thanks for your note. The image will now remain for 7 days for permission to be confirmed. You can remove the {{no permission}} tag and replace it with {{OTRS pending|year=|month=|day=}} once the email confirming permission has been sent. --Rrburke (talk) 15:32, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
Hello, thank you for the update. Have a great day. Elmauser (talk) 15:39, 8 January 2013 (UTC)


File:Arthur Goss 1922.jpg[edit]

Hi Rrburke, the license tag/template is missing. --Túrelio (talk) 17:07, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Hi, Túrelio. Woops; thanks. Rrburke (talk) 17:09, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Re: Copyright status of File:Fredrick banting.jpg[edit]

Thanks for the note! I believe you are correct. I should not forget that Canada is more like India in that regard than Western Europe :) Best wishes Hekerui (talk) 10:32, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

File:Nataly Andria1.jpg[edit]

Hi Rrburke, the cited blog posting is 2 years newer than the upload to Commons. Though it may still be a copyvio, that can't be the source. --Túrelio (talk) 16:27, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Woops; I reverted to this image after the user had uploaded a copyvio image I thought I had reverted to another copyvio, but I failed to check the date. --Rrburke (talk) 16:30, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
She has contacted me now by email and will likely again upload the album cover image (under a different filename) and, if she follows my recommendation, with a permission to OTRS. --Túrelio (talk) 17:23, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Tsillaria360 deletion request[edit]

User / Admin Rrburke: Please provide your justification as to exactly what "out of scope means." All we have here is a request for deletion. What is the wiki commons policy or Guideline(Full Policy) not only for "out of scope" but for "inclusion of these photographs," as we must weigh all of the evidence for this deletion request. This is a serious issue. I caution you to remain neutral in your interpretation and perception of what and how the policies are intended for this type of media. please respond prior to deletion deadline. Tsillaria360 (talk) 22:43, 25 March 2013 (UTC)


http://www.flickr.com/photos/tadarammaradas/8587486809/in/photostream


Tsillaria360 (talk) 22:44, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Hi, Tsillaria360. The files in question are unused personal photos, which come under Commons:Project scope#File not legitimately in use. Examples of such files, set out at Commons:Project scope#Examples, include "private image collections". Where such a file is not legitimately in use and not realistically useful for an educational purpose (a primary criterion in judging a media's file suitability for Commons), it is eligible to be nominated for deletion. If you disagree, please participate in the deletion discussion. --Rrburke (talk) 13:37, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Pier Angeli photo[edit]

I think there is no solution unfortunately. If even I buy a photo (there is an original negative on sale in ebay at 1,000 dollars!!! buth other photo of Pier Angeli at only 5 dollars or euros.), I would not be the author, that remain unknown. The photo was taken in 1954: I'll have to wait only 19 years, I'll be patient. :-) I'm so sorry for the danger to wikipedia and wikicommons: I thought that © was the same that wiki green C--Roburq (talk) 13:38, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Saras oil refinery and ARST bus and train[edit]

I wrote to the companies and I'm waiting for an answer. Unfortunately, it's Easter time and many people are on holyday.--Roburq (talk) 13:55, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

 ==Cagliari container terminal port= I wrote them and they have yet answered me, but they want to examine the photo and the links. I'm waiting for a second answer.--Roburq (talk) 13:55, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

GOOD NEWS: the authorization--Roburq (talk) 09:15, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Oggetto: authorization Da: [email address redacted] A: <permissions-commons@wikimedia.org> CC: <[email address redacted]> Data: 03/04/2013 09:27

AI hereby affirm that PORTO INDUSTRIALE CAGLIARI SPA - C.I.C.T. the creator and/or sole owner of the exclusive copyright of and http://www.cict.it/images/gallery/maersk1.jpg

I agree to STANDARD CHOICE publish that work under the free license "Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0" (unported) and GNU Free Documentation License (unversioned, with no invariant sections, front-cover texts, or back-cover texts). I acknowledge that by doing so I grant anyone the right to use the work in a commercial product or otherwise, and to modify it according to their needs, provided that they abide by the terms of the license and any other applicable laws. I am aware that this agreement is not limited to Wikipedia or related sites. 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 claimed to have been made by 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.

PORTO INDUSTRIALE CAGLIARI SPA C.P. 483 - CAGLIARI CENTRO 09124, CAGLIARI -SARDINIA, ITALY 3 rd April 2013 --Roburq (talk) 09:15, 3 April 2013 (UTC)


The autirization has been sent yesterday but th photo has been deleteed!!!!--Roburq (talk) 06:49, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Hi, Mauro. Not to worry. Now that you have the authorization you can simply upload the file again. Here are the steps:
  • First, go to this upload form:
http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Upload&uploadformstyle=basic
  • Choose the file to upload in the field "Source filename:"
  • Choose a descriptive filename in the field "Destination filename:", but make sure to use a new filename and not to upload over an existing file
  • Drop this into the "Summary" field:
{{Information
|Description=Aerial view of the Cagliari International Container Terminal (CICT)
|Source=[http://www.cict.it/images/gallery/overview.jpg CICT website]
|Date=2007-05-11 05:01
|Author=[http://www.cict.it/ Cagliari Internatioanl Container Terminal] (copyright-holder)
|Permission={{subst:OP}}
|other_versions=
}}
  • For "Licensing" choose "Attribution ShareAlike 3.0"
  • Click the + symbol at "Categories" and add Aerial photographs of Cagliari‎ and Container terminals
  • Click the "Upload File" button
  • Next, forward the email you received from Hetty Lewis to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org with an introductory explanation. Make sure the email also includes:
    • the image attached or a link to the image at the CICT website
    • a link to the file you uploaded to Wikimedia Commons (or they may not be able to find it)

If there's any problem, let me know.

--Rrburke (talk) 15:18, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, I can't succeed! I choose any kind of destination name. Rejected! Then I try to change the name of the file. Rejected. Then I download again the file with a differen name. Rejected. Every time it says me that there is already this file cancelled.....

Hi, Mauro. Sorry to be so long getting back to you. I have uploaded the file to File:Aerial view of the Cagliari International Container Terminal.jpg. Please forward the email you received from C.I.C.T. to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org, along with the following:
Let me know if you have any problems. --Rrburke (talk) 13:21, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Is cannoneris and molentargius, deleted[edit]

I'm trying to contact the authors: I find and wrote one of them, Still waiting.

Hi, Roburq. Don't worry: if they give their permission, the files can be undeleted. Please see Commons:Undeletion requests for more information. --Rrburke (talk) 02:05, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

Hi Rrburke, I find a quite similar photo of Molentargiua which is covered by Creative Commons License. May I upload it and change the photo? thanks Mauro--Roburq (talk) 07:47, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Hi, Roburq. You don't need my permission :) . But make sure the license permits unrestricted commercial re-use and the right to make derivative works. For more information about acceptable licenses, please see Commons:Licenze#Licenze accettabili.
Also, it's preferable that you upload the file under new filename. --Rrburke (talk) 15:45, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Ok, thanks

What do you think about this?[edit]

http://www.sardegnaturismo.it/ Note legali Copyright All text, sound, photographs, video, graphics and software contained within this site are protected under the laws on copyright, patents and those related to intellectual property. The trademarks, names and companies mentioned on this site belong to their respective owners and may be protected by patents and / or copyrights granted or registered by the authorities. Can then be downloaded or used for personal and non-commercial purposes, hence nothing, not even in part, be reproduced, modified or resold for profit. The site's contents have no legal value, you must refer to the texts adopted and published in the official paper of the Official Bulletin of the Region of Sardinia and the Official Gazette. Recall also that in case of discrepancy the latter prevail in the material published on the site.

Hi, Roburq. Unfortunately the license is not free enough: material uploaded to Commons must permit unrestricted commercial re-use. Licenses that restrict commercial use (or the creation of derivative works) are not acceptable on Commons. Please see Commons:Licenze#Licenze accettabili for more information. This link also explains acceptable and unacceptable restrictions in the definition of Free Culture licenses.
Some examples of acceptable and unacceptable licenses may help:
  • Acceptable licenses:
  • Unacceptable licenses:
Please feel free to ask if you need more help. --Rrburke (talk) 15:45, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks a lot again. I'm uploadin photographs from the site of the Comune di Cagliari which has choosen Creative Commons for all its contents, or, actually, I have understood in such a way. http://www.comune.cagliari.it/portale/it/condizioni_uso.page;jsessionid=B52E52BBDB86BF1BFA06B836184933F2

Hi, Roburq. Unfortunately the Comune di Cagliari has chosen the (CC BY-NC-SA 3.0) license, which is not compatible with Commons' licensing policy because it does not permit unrestricted commercial use:
  • “Non commerciale” (non commercial): si concedono al licenziatario determinate libertà sull'opera a condizione che l’utilizzazione di questa non sia prevalentemente intesa o diretta al perseguimento di un vantaggio commerciale o di un compenso monetario privato. Il diritto allo sfruttamento commerciale dell’opera rimane in capo all’autore che potrà decidere con quali modalità commercializzare l’opera stessa.
--Rrburke (talk) 17:29, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Oh no!!! It's a jungle: there is written Licenza C.C., versione 2.5 italiana!!! that I suppose coincides with licenses/by-nc-sa/3.0 and so I must erase the last two photo I uploaded because their restricted commercial use. Actually, there is not the name of the author, so they are property of municipality at all. But I'll suppose it's flyweight, isn'it ?

Hi, Roburq. My mistake: it is "Attribuzione - Non commerciale - Condividi allo stesso modo 2.5 (ITALIA)". But this license does not permit commercial use, as you can see here at Section 4(c), which begins "Tu non puoi esercitare alcuno dei diritti a Te concessi al precedente punto 3..." etc. --Rrburke (talk) 18:06, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Rrburke. It is a very restricted policy because it is quite impossible to find good photos in the web with every permission. It is a pity. But Dura lex, sed lex. I'm not a good photographer, and weather is still rainy, but I have a good camera (all automatic :-) : next month I'll try to take some good photo. By, have a good week! As for me, tomorrow working again, bleah!!!

Hi, Roburq. Try having a look here to see if there is anything you find useful. These are all CC-BY-SA 2.0. You have a good week, too. --Rrburke (talk) 19:18, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Notification about possible deletion[edit]

Commons-emblem-issue.svg Some contents have been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether they should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at their entry.

If you created these pages, please note that the fact that they have been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with them, such as a copyright issue.
Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!


Afrikaans | العربية | Беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | Català | Čeština | Dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | Zazaki | Ελληνικά | English | Esperanto | Español | Eesti | فارسی | Suomi | Français | Galego | עברית | Magyar | Bahasa Indonesia | Íslenska | Italiano | 日本語 | 한국어 | Македонски | മലയാളം | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | Norsk nynorsk | Norsk bokmål | Occitan | Polski | Português | Português do Brasil | Română | Русский | Slovenčina | Slovenščina | Српски / srpski | Svenska | Türkçe | Tiếng Việt | 中文 | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−

Affected:

And also:

Yours sincerely, Stefan4 (talk) 18:25, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

C-SPAN Video Library[edit]

Hi there, Rrburke, just saw your notice on my Talk page about the C-SPAN Video Library screenshot as a potential copyvio. I recommended to C-SPAN's comms team that they release images under a CC-BY license from their (well-established) Flickr account for use on the C-SPAN article, and I'd figured this was sufficient. If I've missed anything in the upload, would you please let me know? Cheers, WWB Too (talk) 13:49, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Hi, WWB Too. My mistake: I reverted my copyvio tag while I looked at the Flickr pages: I found a link off C-SPAN website to the Flickr page, so obviously it's affiliated with C-SPAN. I'm a file reviewer, so I'll approve the files. I have to say I'm a little surprised the whoever manages the Flickr account has the authority to license broadcast images or screencaps of the website, but whatever. Cheers! --Rrburke (talk) 13:59, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
No worries. The release was approved by Howard Mortman, C-SPAN's communications director, who reports directly to co-CEOs Swain and Kennedy. All should be OK; I figured this would be easier than OTRS. Cheers, WWB Too (talk) 14:23, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
Hi again, WWB Too. The reason the FlickreviewR bot wasn't able to review and approve the files is that the info template lacked a direct link in the "source" field to the Flickr file page. Adding such a link automates the approval, making it faster. Cheers. --Rrburke (talk) 14:45, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Permission for a photo I uploaded[edit]

Hi: Can you help please? I am no longer active on Wikipedia and don’t quite know how to handle an email I received yesterday from the Wikimedia Commons notification system about a photo I uploaded a year ago: “Please send permission for File:Peter Scott-Morgan (seated) as Chairman of BCS Robotics Committee in 1983.jpg to OTRS”. As I had not kept the details I emailed the original source. His Permission for Use is attached below and, as explained by his email, it is also on his website http://www.scott-morgan.com/blog/about/academia-and-business/. He also gives you permission to contact him directly if necessary (to do so I just clicked ‘Contact’ on the Entry Page of his website: www.scott-morgan.com - that produces: XXXXXXXXX@scott-morgan.com ). Thanks for helping! LisaNotsimpson (talk) 12:26, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

EMAILED CONFIRMATION: From: Dr Peter B Scott-Morgan Sent: 23 April 2013 17:13 To: 'Lisa XXXXXXXXX' Subject: RE: Please forward to: Dr Peter B Scott-Morgan

Dear Lisa: Yes I do remember you; no need to apologise… I suspect that you retrieved the picture you mention from this page on my website http://www.scott-morgan.com/blog/about/academia-and-business/ where it is labelled as ‘Copyright Free’ (if you hover over the picture you will see the Permission for Use). In answer to Wikipedia’s query, the picture was taken at my request by a colleague using my own camera – so the copyright was definitely mine to use as I chose. And my choice was to make it fully-publically available with no restrictions. Anyone can use it – including, of course, Wikipedia… Hope that helps. If Wikipedia needs to contact me directly then I have no objection. All the best, Peter Scott-Morgan


From: Lisa XXXXXXXXX Sent: 23 April 2013 10:59 To: XXXXXXXXX@scott-morgan.com Subject: Please forward to: Dr Peter B Scott-Morgan

Dear Dr Scott-Morgan

Sorry to disturb you! You might remember that I contacted you a year ago alerting you to a Wikipedia entry I had contributed about you. I have now just been requested to prove the "Permission for use" of the black-and-white 1983 picture I used of you as Chairman of the BCS Robotics Committee. Unfortunately I no longer have my notes about the article. Could you please confirm that the picture is indeed in the public domain (otherwise I worry it may be deleted)? Thanks very much. And apologies once again!!

Hi, Lisa. Happy to help.
The process for verifying permission is called OTRS (Open-source Ticket Request System). It sounds more onerous than it is: all it requires is an email from the copyright-holder sent to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org stating that he or she agrees to publish the image under a free license. Typically OTRS requires that the email be sent from an address associated with the website from which the image is taken, but I imagine that simply forwarding the email you received from Dr. Scott-Morgan will suffice. In general, Wikimedia would prefer the copyright-holder to fill out the declaration of consent you can find at Commons:Email templates, but Dr. Scott-Morgan's email is clear enough that there probably won't be a problem.
The email you send should include, along with Dr. Scott-Morgan's email:
Once you've sent the email to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org, edit the file page, replacing with {{no permission since|month=April|day=23|year=2013}} with {{subst:OP}}.
If you run into any trouble, let me know. If you need more information about OTRS, please have a look at Commons:OTRS.
Incidentally, as a precaution I redacted your surname and the email address from your message. --Rrburke (talk) 14:19, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

All done! Thanks very much for your help!! LisaNotsimpson (talk) 12:23, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

talkback, sorry for late answer[edit]

Message tied up in Ribbon.jpg Hello, Rrburke. You have new messages at Rubin16's talk page.
You may remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Asturianu | Беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | বাংলা | Català | Čeština | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | English | Español | Suomi | Français | Galego | हिन्दी | Magyar | Italiano | 日本語 | ქართული | Македонски | മലയാളം | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | Português | Română | Русский | Slovenščina | Svenska | Türkçe | +/−

rubin16 (talk) 12:51, 6 May 2013 (UTC)


File tagging File:Aerial view of the Cagliari International Container Terminal.jpg[edit]

català | čeština | Deutsch | English | español | suomi | français | magyar | 日本語 | македонски | Nederlands | português | português do Brasil | русский | slovenščina | +/−

The File:Aerial view of the Cagliari International Container Terminal.jpg which you uploaded has been tagged {{OTRS pending}} for more than 30 days. This tag indicates that an email setting out permission to use the file was sent to the OTRS team. Unfortunately, we cannot find any record that such an email has been received, and accordingly the file remains without permission. Unless the OTRS team receives evidence that permission has been granted within 15 days of today's date, the file will be deleted. If you have already sent the permission, please re-send it to "permissions-commons@wikimedia.org" now. Please quote the file name in your email. At the same time, please leave a message at the OTRS noticeboard so that a volunteer can follow this up. Alternatively, you can contact an OTRS volunteer directly.

JuTa 17:56, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

File:Wiseman-infobox.jpg[edit]

Hello, I have the permission for this file, but it was already deleted. I asked the copyright holder to upload it again, maybe that way it will work, but he got the following message: "There was another file already on the site with the same content, but it was deleted." Please help me, what to do.Deligabi (talk) 11:17, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Hi, Deligabi. Not to worry: if the copyright-holder has given permission, the file can be undeleted by posting a request at this page: Commons:Undeletion requests. However, the copyright-holder must be able to demonstrate that he or she indeed holds the copyright to the image. This is done by a process called OTRS which you can read about at this page Commons:OTRS. In short, the copyright-hold must send an email to the address permissions-commons@wikimedia.org. The email should be similar to the template here Commons:OTRS#Declaration of consent for all enquiries. Make sure that the email specifies that the file in question was uploaded under the file name File:Wiseman-infobox.jpg, but that it was deleted. After that,post a request to Commons:Undeletion requests stating that the copyright-holder has agreed to publish this image under a free license and has sent an email to OTRS.
If you find any of this confusing or run into any trouble, I would be happy to try to help you. Just post another message here and I will respond. Rrburke (talk) 15:56, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Deleted files[edit]

Good morning, I am trying to upload some pictures from which I have the rights but I previously used on Carles&Sofia official website. Some are pictures of newspaper reviews from which I took the pictures as well. I'm new using Wikipedia commons and provably didn't fill the forms correctly. Could you please tell me what do I need to do to be allowed to use these pictures in Wikipedia? The files that have been deleted are the following:

  • File:Carles & Sofia piano duo.jpg (used on the official website)
  • File:Carles and Sofia.jpg (used on the official website)
  • File:Carles & Sofia. Golden Recordings.jpg (used on the official website)
  • File:JIN MAO CONCERT HALL.jpg (picture of a hand program)
  • File:Freiberger Zeitung. 16.01.2006.jpg (newspaper review)
  • File:Diario Levante. 27.04.2001.jpg (newspaper review)
  • File:L'Eco di Bergamo. 01.02.2006.jpg (newspaper review)
  • File:Est Républicain 13.07.2007.jpg (newspaper review)
  • File:CD Compact. Enero 1997.jpg (newspaper review)
  • File:Vers l'Avenir 25.05.2001.jpg (newspaper review)

Thank you in advance and sorry for the trouble I might have caused. Your sincerely User:Littleparrot1

Hi, Littleparrot1. Welcome to Wikimedia Commons. I'd be happy to try to help. In the case of the newspaper clippings, these probably can't be used on Wikimedia Commons because they are likely copyrighted by their publisher, the owner of the newspaper. This is probably also true of the Jin Mao Concert Hall program: the concert hall probably holds the copyright. As for the cover of the CD, it is probably copyrighted by the record label, KNS Classical. If they agree to publish it under a free license such as Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike (please see http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/es), it can be uploaded to Wikimedia Commons. Otherwise it can't, because Wikimedia Commons can only accept free files (for a definition, please see http://freedomdefined.org/Definition/Es). To learn more about Wikimedia Commons' licensing policy, please see Commons:Licensing/es.
The others may be easier to license if you are the copyright-holder. However, because they have been published on the website previously, first it must be confirmed that you are the copyright-holder. This is done by a process called OTRS, which you can read about at Commons:OTRS/es. In short, the copyright-holder must send an email to the address permissions-commons@wikimedia.org. The email should be similar to the template here Commons:OTRS#Declaration of consent for all enquiries (unfortunately there is currently no Spanish translation of the letter). Make sure that the email specifies the file names of the files that were deleted. After that, post a request to Commons:Undeletion requests stating that the copyright-holder has agreed to publish these images under a free license and has sent an email to OTRS.
If you find any of this confusing or run into any trouble, I would be happy to try to help you. Just post another message here and I will respond. Rrburke (talk) 14:03, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your prompt response. It is a major help. I still have some questions: What must KNSClassical do to allow to publish the CD cover under free licence? Does de founder of the label need to send a declaration of consent as well or is there another procedure? And finally, what information of the copyright holder must be specified in the last part of the Declaration of consent form, where it says SENDER NAME AND DETAILS (to allow further verification of authenticity). What information should the copyright-holder include there?

Thank you very much for your support Kind regards

thank you very much. User:Littleparrot1

Hi, again. If the record label indeed holds the copyright, then a representative of the company who has the authority to do so (not necessarily the founder, but someone duly empowered) must send a declaration.
As for "SENDER NAME AND DETAILS", it should include the name and contact information of the copyright holder or his or her representative. In the case of a representative, it should specify what position the person holds that permits him or her to speak on the copyright-holder's behalf -- for example, "business manager" or "agent" or the like. It is better if the email is sent from an address clearly associated with the copyright-holder -- for in this case [someone]@carlesandsofia.com would be appropriate, because it would make the verification easier.
Again, please let me know if you have any questions or experience any difficulty. --Rrburke (talk) 21:50, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Again thank you very much for your kind response and your support. I'm going to send the declaration of consent today and see if it works. Kind regards,

File:Oscar Peterson by Harry Palmer (1984).jpg[edit]

Hello!,

File:Oscar Peterson by Harry Palmer (1984).jpg, which you uploaded, is tagged for speedy deletion. Unfortunately, copyrighted images from the collection of Library and Archives Canada may not be used commercially and may not be freely modified without special permission. For more information, you can see Category:Images from Library and Archives Canada, the letter from LAC, Commons:Deletion requests/Library and Archives Canada non-PD images and the pages [3] and [4] on the website of LAC. -- Asclepias (talk) 00:51, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Hi, Asclepias. I understand the concern, but I think the issue is contestable, and as such doesn't qualify for speedy deletion but instead should be afforded a deletion discussion. Rrburke (talk) 01:26, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

arquivos[edit]

Os arquivos que eu carreguei tinha sim conteúdo livre. Atribuição a Creative Commons. (talk)

Oi. Capas de livros possuem direitos autorais. A pessoa que os carregou para o Flickr não é portador dos direitos autorais. Por favor, veja Commons:License laundering/pt. Tchau, --Rrburke (talk) 20:32, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

File:BeefCutChuck.svg[edit]

Commons-emblem-issue.svg File:BeefCutChuck.svg has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue.
Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!


Afrikaans | العربية | Беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | Català | Čeština | Dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | Zazaki | Ελληνικά | English | Esperanto | Español | Eesti | فارسی | Suomi | Français | Galego | עברית | Magyar | Bahasa Indonesia | Íslenska | Italiano | 日本語 | 한국어 | Македонски | മലയാളം | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | Norsk nynorsk | Norsk bokmål | Occitan | Polski | Português | Português do Brasil | Română | Русский | Slovenčina | Slovenščina | Српски / srpski | Svenska | Türkçe | Tiếng Việt | 中文 | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−

Closeapple (talk) 17:16, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

About Notification about possible deletion[edit]

Dear Rrburke,

Thanks for your concern. I am still novice in wiki commons. I may not understand the criteria of uploading image in commons. But I realize that some of image is may be bit improper but not all. Some image that you nominated for deletion, I think those image have educational values. So My question is how can I delete those improper images? Ibrahim Husain Meraj (talk) 07:17, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Greetings, Ibrahim Husain Meraj -- and welcome to Wikimedia Commons. The images will be probably deleted by an administrator after the deletion discussion, so you don't need to do anything. However, if you believe there are images I have nominated for deletion that have potential educational value, please participate in the deletion discussion here.
As for the criteria defining what images are appropriate to upload to Commons, please see Commons:Project scope. Additionally, links from the welcome message on your user talk page will take you to pages offering a broader introduction to Commons.
Should you need any assistance please feel free to contact me again and I'll do my best to answer your questions. Again, welcome. --Rrburke (talk) 12:08, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Question[edit]

Hello Rrburke, do you know the source of this illustration: Cypripedium candidum ?. Greetings. Orchi (talk) 13:22, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Hi, Orchi. Yes: it's from a public domain field guide called Wetland flora: Field office illustrated guide to plant species which is produced by the NRCS National Wetland Team in Fort Worth, TX. It's published by the United States Department of Agriculture Natural Resources Conservation Service. The source page is here and information about its copyright status is here. Cheers. --Rrburke (talk) 13:29, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
....thanks for the quick answer. Orchi (talk) 13:32, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Monumenta 2014[edit]

Hi Rrburke! Some pictures are copyright violations, it's my fault. But File:Monumenta 2014 at the Grand Palais, Paris 25 May 2014 (6).jpg is OK. It is a detail of a big artwork.--Paris 16 (talk) 20:52, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

Copyright[edit]

Hi RRburke,

I have updated the copyright source of the images to a more specific link.

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:M%C3%BCller-Brockmann_2.jpg

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:M%C3%BCller-Brockmann.jpg

Please look at it to remove the advice of bad copiryght for them.

Regards.

SCreativasJG

Hi, SCreativasJG. The problem isn't with the photographs as much as it is with the copyright status of the underlying works. They appear to be promotional posters advertising concerts dating from the 1950s. It's possible that, as mere text and geometric shapes, the may fall below the threshold of originality necessary to merit copyright. However, if they are copyrightable then they remain copyrighted because their copyright has not expired. As I say, this is a question of the copyright status of the posters themselves, not the photographs. --Rrburke (talk) 22:05, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Violazione di copyright in un immagine donata con licenza CC BY SA ?[edit]

Salve, Ieri ho caricato due immagini che l'autore ha donato a wikimedia. Per essere in trasparenza totale ho fatto cambiare la licenza delle foto caricate sul suo account flickr in CC BY-SA, quando le ho caricate ho detto chi era l'autore cosi come riporta la licenza (nome e cognome), la licenza delle immagini che ha dato e la url dell'immagine di flickr in modo da risalire alla licenza. Questa mattina in wikimedia mi hai scritto un avviso di segnalazione di possibile violazione di copyright. come mai? cosa posso fare o devo fare altro per evitare la segnalazione? Grazie --DomenicoTurrisi (talk) 12:00, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Infringement of copyright in a given image under CC BY SA?[edit]

Hello, Yesterday I uploaded two images that the author has given to Flickr. To be total transparency I did change the license of uploaded photos on his flickr account in CC BY-SA, when I loaded I told him who was the author as well as shows the license (full name), the license of the images that and gave the url of the image to flickr in order to trace the license. This morning on Flickr I've written a warning signal of possible copyright infringement. how so? What can I do or I have to do to avoid the message? Thank you --DomenicoTurrisi (talk) 12:04, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Infringement of copyright in a given image under CC BY SA?[edit]

Hello, Yesterday I uploaded two images that the author has given to Flickr. To be total transparency I did change the license of uploaded photos on his flickr account in CC BY-SA, when I loaded I told him who was the author as well as shows the license (full name), the license of the images that and gave the url of the image to flickr in order to trace the license. This morning on Flickr I've written a warning signal of possible copyright infringement. how so? What can I do or I have to do to avoid the message? Thank you --DomenicoTurrisi (talk) 12:04, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Hi, Domenico. The problem with the images is that the person who owns the Flickr account is not the person who took the photographs. The Flickr user uploaded the images to his account, but he didn't have the right to licnse them CC-BY-SA. There are a lot of copyright violations on Flickr, so it's usually prudent to check anything on Flickr that looks like a professional photo to make sure the Flick user has the right to license the image. This can sometimes be difficult, but using the EXIF data and Google Images are good ways to detect copyright violations. --Rrburke (talk) 16:11, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

RE: Nine Muses at K-Collection in Seoul[edit]

Sure. under the last photo, on the right, there's the small icon of the license. --Chiyako92 (talk) 15:35, 2 July 2014 (UTC)