User talk:EPO

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository

Archive: July 23rd, 2006 - January 8th, 2007 Archive: March 12th, 2007 - April 24th, 2007 Archive: December 7th, 2007 - September 16th, 2008

Archive: January 8th, 2007 - January 26th, 2007 Archive: April 29th, 2007 - July 12th, 2007

Archive: January 26th, 2007 - February 12th, 2007 Archive: July 16th, 2007 - November 6th, 2007

Contents 1 Image:Radiorama 12-2007.jpg 2 Image:Rydbergformula.jpg 3 Image:Ferdinand_Heinke.jpg 4 Image Tagging Image:Football at the 1912 Summer Olympics - Denmark squad.JPG 5 Image:Miller Chill.jpg 6 Opening 1912 Stockholm Olympics.jpg 7 Image:Sweden olympic team 1908.jpg 8 I need help please 9 Request for assistance 10 Trademark 11 Foreslår sletning af Image:Hans Peter Hansen (S).jpg 12 Adolf Eichmann 13 File:Kort fra Cirkulære om hovedlandeveje 1960.jpg 14 File:Sg-logo.jpg 15 Big Nickel 16 Pusleogpixi 17 File:F berglund.jpg 18 deleted photos from ft.dk 19 To mere fra Århus Kommune 20 File:Yasser-arafat-1999.jpg 21 Please link images 22 Hvorfor er du gået igennem mine billeder 23 Could you please explain... 24 File:Tanky legionářů.JPG 25 Request for help with licensing photo's. 26 File:Copenhagen Police Scania barricade remover.jpg

[edit] Image:Radiorama 12-2007.jpg

Hi! The image in subject is the scanned version of the cover page of an Italian magazine. I don't know too much the policies of Commons, however I don't think it can be released under the GFDL --Rutja76 (talk) 12:24, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for the notice. The image has now been deleted. --|EPO| ^da: 10:39, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Rydbergformula.jpg

I requested undeletion a few days ago, but nothing is happening. Who did you delete this? /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 20:25, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Fyller i med lite information också: det var en signatur från en författare som dog 1919, och om signaturen nu är copyrightad borde den här signaturen ha fallit i public domain vid det här laget. //moralist (talk) 20:29, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Please continue this discussion at the undeletion request page. I have made a clarification there. --|EPO| ^da: 10:04, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Ferdinand_Heinke.jpg

Though I understand the PD-art policy of the Wikimedia, it is not so much a question if I agree to it or not. In this case it is a question whether I am willing to pay the fees for the picture and its usage on Wikipedia or not. And actually - no, I am not. And in this case I don't care about if Wikimedia think it is ok to keep the picture. Will they pay the fees? I doubt it. So please, delete the picture even if it is ok to keep it according to the Commons policy. --Paulae (talk) 13:27, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Personally I am no more fan of this than you are. But as you understand I am only acting on the policies as an administrator. The image will be deleted - don't worry about that. Currently I am just trying to figure out what to do after the deletion. --|EPO| ^da: 13:43, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

The picture is not connected with any article in the Wikipedia. What do you mean with „What to do“? How to explain the deletion afterwards? Because you might act against the policies of Wikimedia? Or what is it that worries you at the moment? And if you plan to delete the picture - why did you mark it as „kept“? --Paulae (talk) 13:52, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Will not be a problem to explain the deletion afterwards - I am wondering if anyone else would be willing to upload it. Usually we do not delete images that are not in violation of Commons policies. The problem arose again on the Commons irc channel when you re-requested its deletion. It should be kept - it is a fine and "free" image. --|EPO| ^da: 14:03, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

So far, the only picture known is that one of the Weimar Klassik Stiftung. And they refuse to give it to the Commons, Wikimedia or any other institution, if they don't get paid. And because they will not get paid by Wikimedia, it should be deleted. I repeat it: Don't keep the picture, just because I uploaded it. It is not connected to any article so far, because it actually shouldn't be here. Regard it as a kind of copyright violation without an existing copyright. Maybe something like a publishing violation... --Paulae (talk) 14:14, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

I fully understand your arguments and I support you. The source of the problem is the Foundation. If you are not willing to take the risk someone else must be. Else this would not be a problem. --|EPO| ^da: 14:27, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

I know ... thanks for deleting the picture though. I'll put a message on the German Wikipedia, maybe someone else will upload the picture. --Paulae (talk) 14:34, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Thank you so much for deleting it a second time. There is a different user from the German wikipedia who will upload it in the next days. So, the picture will not be „lost“ --Paulae (talk) 17:26, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image Tagging Image:Football at the 1912 Summer Olympics - Denmark squad.JPG

Hello! All information about photos from 1912 Official Olympic report can be searched in it. If there are no advanced permission or information about photographers in it report you can delete photo. Sidik iz PTU (talk) 08:35, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

I have seen the report and it is an official report from the Swedish Olympic Commitee, which still exists. As nothing special is noted at these photos it must be assumed that the copyright at the time was held by them. As they still exist they of course can't have been dead for more than 70 years.

Unfortulately copyright law in Scandinavia does not pay attention to organizations which keep existing. In other words as they still exist they still own the copyright. --|EPO| ^da: 16:55, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Hi! What about this tag {{PD-Sweden-photo}}? Kind regards Doma-w (talk) 09:40, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

a) is about photographers who keeps the copyright for their works and b) is for anonymous works.

In this case the photographer was most likely hired by the Swedish Olympic Commitee (SOC) for photographing the events for them. In other words a commissioned work. For these cases the copyright is transferred to the employer - also in Sweden.

The photgrapher is not mentioned so we don't know the identity of him. But that does not neccesarily make it an anonymous work. And with the above argument the copyright holder is known. --|EPO| ^da: 17:33, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Many thanks for your answer. And the images are also not "images of the press"? This means, that all the images from this Olympic report (and also all the other Olympic reports) will never become public domain and can never used for wiki? This is sad... Kind regards Doma-w (talk) 21:42, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

I would not call SOC "press" - especially not their reports. However they may have released certain images for press use or such. They will become public domain if SOC "dies" one day. On the other hand you might contact them to see if they would be willing to release some of their photos for free use. --|EPO| ^da: 07:38, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

I doubt that this is correct. Copyright expires, typically 70 years after the death of the photographer or 70 years after the picture for anonymous corporate stuff. But one could argue that this was "fotografisk bild" rather than "fotografiskt verk", and then it was never copyrighted. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 09:45, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

As far as I know there is no special rules regarding images by corporations. If you can guide me to these rules I would very much take a closer look at them. However I can without doubt say that these are verker rather than bilder. --|EPO| ^da: 15:54, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

The special rule for corporations is the rule about anonymous authorship, the typical case being illustrators and photographers working for hire. There may be some extra protection for company logos, but that is trademark protection rather than copyright protection. This 1912 photograph is free if the Olymoic committee published it without a name. (my layman's understanding) /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 16:06, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Though I admit that I am not 100 % sure about that interpretation - I really doubt that such works can be categorized as anonymous. It would be most logical to put an exception into the law's text under transfer of copyrights.

When it comes to how the law should be interpretated we must have something stronger than just a layman's version. Perhaps we should contact the Swedish authorities to tell if that rule applies? --|EPO| ^da: 16:55, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

The Swedish authority have announced a law, and it is clear enough for Commons to have {{PD-Ugglan}} for the anonymous drawings and photos in Nordisk Familjebok. If a work is published without a name (as in the 1912 official SOC-report), it is an anonymous work. The report has long passages about the SOC's income from it controlling images, but only one photographer is mentioned by name, and that is "Oscar Halldin, Photographer to H. M. the King." The "list of illustrations" in the report mentions no names, neither does the image caption on page 710 of the pdf. I have now seen the photo, and it is clearly a "fotografisk bild", to which {{PD-Sweden-1969}} applies; this is in the category of "images of the press", not an artsy studio portrait. Clearly a free image. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 18:23, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Many thanks again! So is there a possibility to bring all these images back? Doma-w (talk) 22:40, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

I now see that EPO deleted more than 60 images from the 1912 Olympics. It is rather unsatisfactory that this administrator wants to "contact the Swedish authorities", instead of just undeleting. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 07:47, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

As EPO appears to be unavailable, I entered a request at Commons:Undeletion requests/Current requests#1912 Summer Olympics in Stockholm. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 10:14, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

EPO, thank you, about 70 historical images have now been restored to category:1912 Summer Olympics. As to you reasoning, you wrote in the undeletion discussion: "I read the law's text through and assumed that the copyright was transferred as per § 27 and then would expire as described in § 43."
But transferring a right does not augment or extend a right. In § 43 it says: Upphovsrätt till ett verk gäller intill utgången av sjuttionde året efter det år då upphovsmannen avled eller, i fråga om verk som avses i 6 §, efter den sist avlidne upphovsmannens dödsår.
You may have thought of the reference to 6 §, but that is about multiple persons having made a work together. Copyright is limited by the death year of natural persons. A juridical person cannot be a creator of a work in any jurisdiction as far as I am aware. A juridical person certainly cannot make paintings, sculptures or photographs. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 20:50, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

I changed the license for images found with catscan in Category:Unknown - October 2008 to {{PD-Sweden-1969}} to avoid another deletion. If it wasn't right, please change back. Best regards // Mankash (talk) 04:38, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

I understand your argument Peter. Of course an organization itself cannot create anything. However a person working for it may create something on behalf of it. In such cases I am quite sure that the copyright does not belong to the person creating the work, but the organization it was created for. And as such I would believe PD = life + 70years unless anything else is noted in the law. --|EPO| ^da: 18:30, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

And by "life" you still mean "existance of the organization"?? Well, I am not a copyright lawyer or anything, but in my opinion this shows that you lack understanding of copyright basics. I encourage you to look if you can find examples of your doctrine. Please let me know the results of your search. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 18:48, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately I did not find anything for Sweden. The United States has rules regarding work made for hire, but Denmark only has legal practise. The standard rule regarding 70 years is only standard if the creator owns the copyright. As such I do believe there are certain legal practise governing works for hire.

Copyright law of Sweden seems to look a lot like Danish ditto. The problem is that we have no specific rules written into the law about this subject. I will see if I can get time in the next days to write to Danish and Swedish authorities for clarification.

Personally I do not in any way believe I lack understanding of copyright basics - on the contrary. --|EPO| ^da: 20:46, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Also that Danish article is very clear about basics: "Et andet kernepunkt er, at kun levende personer kan få ophavsrettigheder. Her er logikken, at et firma eller virksomhed ikke i sig selv kan skabe et værk. Der skal mennesker til." You admit that your highly original doctrine about "life" of corporations has no basis in law. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 21:15, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

EPO: I can't find anything that backs your interpretation of the Swedish copyrights laws, which is contrary to the interpretation normally used (by media houses etc). Please give some kind of support for your opinion, such as a court ruling, or in fact anything at all.

[edit] Image:Miller Chill.jpg

Could you please clarify why the above image was deleted? It was simply a cropped version of a CC picture of a beer bottle? If I wanted the focus of the cropping to be the logo, I would have just cropped it to the logo.--Rockfang (talk) 20:19, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

It may not have been your intention to focus on the logo, but it did. With such focus it creates a derivative work. --|EPO| ^da: 20:09, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Opening 1912 Stockholm Olympics.jpg

Hi. The image Image:Opening 1912 Stockholm Olympics.jpg was deleted with the comment "Unused duplicate". However, it was used in 4 pages at swedish wikipedia. Could there be a mistake? Med vänlig hälsning // Mankash (talk) 18:02, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Reason for removal: Unused duplicate.

This image was in fact in use on the af.wp project. Please let us know of what is was a duplicate so we can add it back to af:Olimpiese Somerspele 1912. Best regards. Naudefj (talk) 18:04, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

I've added Image:Olympic opening ceremony 1912.jpg, same as on swedish wikipedia. // Mankash (talk) 18:10, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Great, thank you very much! Best regards. Naudefj (talk) 18:16, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Seems to be a mistake. Yesterday I added the image to CommonsDelinker for replacement all places. Due to some reason it was apparently not replaced all places. --|EPO| ^da: 20:09, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

It is certainly not a mistake. I saw this, it looks right. There must be a bug in CommonsDelinker. I will make a notice at m:User talk:CommonsDelinker. // Mankash (talk) 11:14, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Never mind my last message. I think you deleted the image before the CD command was executed. I'm glad it's just a single human mistake. Kind regards // Mankash (talk) 21:12, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Sweden olympic team 1908.jpg

Hi. Why have you deleted Image:Sweden olympic team 1908.jpg? It can't be copyright violation, the image is from 1908. That is 100 years ago, which by far is longer than any copyright can be hold by any law, isn't it? // Mankash (talk) 22:17, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Om upphovsrättsmakaren är känd är det 70 år efter dennes död. Om det är okänd upphovsrättsmakare är det 70 år efter att bilden togs. Se Template:PD-Sweden-photo. //moralist (talk) 08:48, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Not sure if Swedish law applies, the 1908 Olympics were in London. But if Swedish, this would probably be a "fotografisk bild" utan verkshöjd, {{PD-Sweden-1969}}. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 09:23, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

I must admit that the copyright regulations seems a bit unclear to me. However, {{PD-old}} says 70 years and {{PD-UK-unknown}} says "A photograph, which was made available to the public (e.g. by publication or display at an exhibition) before 1 January 1938". Anyway, I'm just wondering why the image was deleted. Best regards // Mankash (talk) 18:40, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Text following the image was:

"The Swedish national football team at the 1908 Olympic Games in London from http://www.iffhs.de"

Personally I would treat this as any other image taken from some more or less random website where Commons uploader claims the image to be free. In order to determine if this image is free or not the following information at least is needed: Author, time of photograph and/or publication. If information cannot be found it is rather difficult to prove it is free. --|EPO| ^da: 20:52, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your answer. The reason I ask is that the image was in heavily use, in many languages. I was supriced that such an old image still wasn't PD. However, it's quite possible that your right. I found the image at iffhs, but no further information. Anyway, thanks. Med vänlig hälsning // Mankash (talk) 10:37, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

[edit] I need help please

I want to change the name of my account and I don't know how to do. I saw that you are an admin and i wonder if you could help me please?---K90- (talk) 18:11, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Here: Commons:Changing username. --|EPO| ^da: 09:03, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Thx a lot! ---K90- (talk) 16:56, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Request for assistance

Hi EPO, I’m going to upload a series of about 800 images I took in northern Jutland in and around the cities of Aalborg, Hals, Frederikshavn, Nibe, Støvring, Hobro, Mariager … My problem is that I’m not familiar with the recently changed Danish municipalities and therefore sometimes don’t know how to categorize the images correct. Also I’m sometimes looking for the correct Danish names of bridges, churches etc. Typical questions are like this:
- What ist the name of the big bascule bridge in Aalborg?
- To what village, city and in the end municipality does the Bronze Age megalith Troldkirken belong?
It would be very nice if you could get me in contact with a user familiar with that area who can and likes to help me a little. Regards, -- Ies (talk) 18:17, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Trademark

Hej EPO

Ville bare have dig til at kigge på Image:Burger King Paa Karl Johan.jpg, da jeg synes det lugter lidt af afledt værk, selvom de prøver at skjule det med en ® skabelon. --Broadbeer (talk) 13:42, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Foreslår sletning af Image:Hans Peter Hansen (S).jpg

Hej EPO. Dette billede ser ud til at være oploadet under et forkert navn og har derfor på et tidspunkt været brugt i forkert artikel (da:Hans Peter Hansen (minister)) og været diskuteret her og her. Nu er der kommet dette billede: Image:HP Hanssen.jpg af den samme mand, det er øjensynligt rigtigt navngivet og placeret i den rigtige artikel: da:H.P. Hanssen - og det fejl-navngivede billede bliver ikke længere brugt. Derfor vil jeg anmode om, at det bliver slettet. M.v.h. --Brams (talk) 21:52, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Adolf Eichmann

Hi Epo. Why have you dalate Eichmann? Wich kind of copyright does it have? I´t was a photo by german national archive wich is under public licence as i know. --Seha bs (talk) 17:10, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

I was told it was deleted many times before as a copyright violation. The file describtion did not mention author, but a blog should be the source. --|EPO| ^da: 17:30, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Can we take this one and as source CIA or NARA? [1] There is no uniformed photo at commons. --Seha bs (talk) 17:43, 28 December 2008 (UTC) PS: Terms of usage are here: [2].--Seha bs (talk) 17:45, 28 December 2008 (UTC) Allready done :)--Seha bs (talk) 17:56, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

[edit] File:Kort fra Cirkulære om hovedlandeveje 1960.jpg

Hej EPO

Jeg ser du gerne vil slette ovenstående fil. Billedet stammer fra circulære om hovedvej 1960. Danske love, bekendtgørelser og cirkulærer kan frit kopieres. Jeg kan imidletig være i tvivl om hvilken "tag" der er mest korrekt.--Lcl (talk) 21:21, 2 February 2009 (UTC) Jeg kan henvise til §9 i Bekendtgørelse af lov om ophavsret--Lcl (talk) 21:38, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Jeg sad og tænkte på, at paragraffen kun gjaldt for lovtekster. Men når jeg læser paragraffen igen kan jeg godt se din pointe. Der er ikke nogen "rigtig" licensskabelon til den slags. Men {{PD-because}} ville måske være på sin plads. --|EPO| ^da: 09:07, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Jamen sådan én har jeg så sat på, fjerne du så den fæle sletteadvarsel?--83.88.188.51 16:48, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:Sg-logo.jpg

Hej EPO,

Jeg har lagt et logo for det hedengangne gymnasium Søborg Gymnasium op. Jeg er i tvivl omkring copyright osv. Gymnasiet lukkede i 1987 og den der har tegnet logoet er pt ukendt eller ikke kontaktbar. Kan man tillade billedet alligevel? Jeg redigerer wiki artiklen om Søborg Gymnasium og planlægger at lægge lidt billeder op. Logoet vil være oplagt. Kan du hjælpe med råd og vejledning?--Cstern (talk) 08:43, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Det pågældende logo indeholder den tidligere Sønderborg Kommunes kommunevåben, som absolut ikke er frit. Hvis ikke der er blevet gjort noget særligt vedrørende rettighederne til det logo, vil jeg formode, at de bortfalder 70 år efter sammenlægningen - dvs. 31. december 2070. Resten af gymnasiets logo er blot en lille og simpel tekst, der ikke har værkshøjde.

Kort sagt: Gymnasiets logo er ikke frit. --|EPO| ^da: 14:26, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Det er nu Gladsaxe Kommunes logo, ikke Sønderborg (men måske de ligner hinanden). Gladsaxe Kommune eksisterer fortsat, så den grundlæggende besked må jo være den samme. Men måske man kan spørge kommunen om tilladelse. Det vil jeg (måske) kikke på. --Cstern (talk) 14:52, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Jeg er vist ved at være lidt for søvnig. Blev ved med at læse "Sønderborg" i stedet for "Søborg". Så det er jo nok snarere Gladsaxe Kommune, sagen drejer sig om.

Men du skal ikke skrue dine forhåbninger op.. Sandsynligheden for, at Gladsaxe Kommune accepterer betingelserne, anser jeg for allerhøjest minimale. --|EPO| ^da: 15:14, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Big Nickel

How exactly was File:BigNickel.jpg, a file which was directly uploaded to Wikipedia by its photographer, a "derivative work"? It's a public monument, and thus falls under Freedom of panorama regardless of the copyright status of the thing that the monument happens to be commemorating.74.12.76.167 19:36, 6 March 2009 (UTC) (en:User:Bearcat)

Canadian law seems to allow derivatives of 3D works - but not 2D works. I was not aware of this difference, which will then allow this coin. Thus I am restoring the image. --|EPO| ^da: 21:22, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Pusleogpixi

Hej EPO

Jeg tror, du lige bør se nærmere på user:Pusleogpixi. Vedkommende har gentagne gange uploaded billeder i strid med ophavsretten. Pt. er der et maleri og et kort over Viborg Amt, hvor der ikke er angivet tilladelse fra respektive skabere. Derudover har vedkommende to gange slettet dele af sin brugerdiskussion, sidste gang endda efter at have fået at vide at den slags er ilde set. --Dannebrog Spy (talk) 22:22, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Tak for oplysningen. Jeg har igen blokeret ham og vil holde et særligt vågent øje med ham på dansk Wikipedia. Hvis du skulle opdage noget mistænkeligt, må du endelig kontakte mig. --|EPO| ^da: 10:17, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:F berglund.jpg

Hei. Kan du se hva som er kilden til bildet på bildets opprinnelige beskrivelsesside på dansk Wikipedia? Det kommer litt uklart frem på beskrivelsessiden på Commons om det er da:Bruger:C.Thure som er fotograf. Hilsen --Kjetil_r 14:41, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

[edit] deleted photos from ft.dk

Hi EPO

You have just deleted photos I have upload. Have you read the description page on the files:

All images on the Danish Parliament's website have been placed in the public domain, including this one. From "Billeder fra Folketinget" (Pictures from the Parliament) [3], translated from Danish: "These pictures from the Parliament are all for free use, on websites and in publications." When asked via email if this permission applied to ALL photographs published on ft.dk, webmaster Benny Høyer affirmed, specifying the following [4] "Regarding 'Permission to use photographs from ft.fk for articles': The pictures we use on ft.dk are either photographed by Parliament staff or by professional photographers who have been paid extra for the right to release the pictures for free use.

and if so why did you delete them? You are just referering to an old discussion but since then we clearly have got permission to use them. Kinamand (talk) 07:54, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

As I see it the permission for "free use" has not changed. In 2007 the photos were for "free use". Unless you have a clear statement that the images are public domain I see no difference. --|EPO| ^da: 08:05, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

[edit] To mere fra Århus Kommune

• File:Mod_Christiansbjerg_1.jpg
• File:Århus_Katrinebjerg_på_Christiansbjerg.jpg

mvh Nillerdk (talk) 05:41, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Tak for det. De to er nu blevet slettede. --|EPO| ^da: 18:12, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:Yasser-arafat-1999.jpg

Hello, could you take a look at File:Yasser-arafat-1999.jpg?

That image was copied here from da.wikipedia.org in 2004. It looks suspicious, but perhaps it was indeed taken by Hansjorn. What do you think?

Platonides (talk) 21:53, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Hansjorn has taken many photos - also of prominent people. I'm certain it is indeed his photo and after doing some research I found strong indicies as well: [5] is the description page of his personal video clip - including some scenes from his hometown (Værløse) and from his visit in the Danish parliament, where he managed to film Yasser Arafat. The only thing I find strange is the link to helledegn.dk, which I'm going to remove now because it seems to have nothing to do with the photo. According to this [6], Hans Jørn was webmaster for Helle Degn, who was a MP back then. Probably she arranged the invitation of Hans Jørn to the parliament in order to make some shots for her homepage? Nillerdk (talk) 06:55, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Please link images

BotMultichillT 11:52, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

• Image:Bdcoru por reberth.GIF was uncategorized on 6 September 2009.

 Done Nillerdk (talk) 13:16, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Hvorfor er du gået igennem mine billeder

Der er mere end fem millioner billeder på Commons. Hvad får en 23 årig tømrer-lærling fra Roskilde til pludselig at ønske at gå igennem hvad JEG finder for godt at uploade til Commons? Og incidenten synes accentueret af min nylige upload (i 2 omgange) af File:Statsgæld 1975-2008.PNG. I anden omgang havde jeg fundet en vældig fin licens, som gjorde klart, at filen var knyttet til Danmark at man ikke uden videre kunne ændre på filen. Det er netop Nationalbankens holdning at de ikke tillader ændring, og her har mit spørgsmål altid været, hvem i udlandet kunne tænke sig at bruge tid på at ændre et dansk billede (i det omfang de forstår hvad der er snak om), og hvis de virkelig ønsker det, hvorfor så ikke hente filen direkte fra Nationalbankens webside? Det mest sandsynlige - hvsi nogen ønsker at ændre filen, er at det er danske brugere. Men her må een spørge: "Hvor skal filen bruges efter ændringen?" Hvis den skal bruges på da-wiki, så vil det være nemt for os at holde øje med den (således ændrede) fil, og så sørge for at den bliver fjernet. Igen må een spørge: "Hvorfor ikke bare hente den relevante graf direkte fra Nationalbankens webside, i stedet for at gå omvejen til Commons? Det er denne form for elementær logik som jeg ville ønske at 23 årige tømrer-lærlinge fra Roskilde i højere grad ville gøre brug af.

Og hvorfor er sletning (nummer 2) ikke nævnt på min talk-page? Jeg har set, at begrundelsen Copyright violation bruges. Men "Copyright" betyder ret til at kopiere. Og Nationalbanken giver denne ret. Derfor er det forkert og upræcist at angive grunden til sletningen som Copyright violation.Nick Anfinsen (talk) 15:08, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Jeg kan slet ikke se, hvilken relevans min alder og min daglige beskæftigelse har at gøre med sagen.

Det virker som om, at du opfatter det som en personlig hetz - men det er helt fejlfortolket. Det var helt tilfældigt, at jeg fandt billedet fra Danmarks Nationalbank. Og min erfaring siger mig desværre, at den gennemsnitlige "synder" lægger mere end 1 problematisk billede op. Derfor fandt jeg også frem til andre problematiske filer.

Mht. netop grafen fra Danmarks Nationalbank, så viser din argumentation særdeles tydeligt, at du har misforstået (eller ikke læst) reglerne: Licensen skal tillade ændringer. Det er komplet irrelevant, hvorvidt andre personer vil benytte sig af det. Regelsættet kan koges ned til en ret klar formulering: Der skal tillades uindskrænket kopiering, brug og redigering. Overholdes én af disse betingelser ikke, kvalificerer det sig til sletning.

Efter at have gennemgået mine sletninger kan jeg konstatere, at den eneste fil, jeg ikke har gjort opmærksom på, er grafen fra Nationalbanken. Dette skyldes primært, at du tidligere har fået at vide, at filen ikke er velkommen. Men jeg burde nok have givet besked igen om, at filen 2 uger senere, stadigvæk ikke var velkommen.

Derudover har du også misforstået det engelske ord "copyright". Hvis man oversætter hhv. "copy" og "right", så bliver det ganske rigtigt til "kopieret" - altså retten til at kopiere. Imidlertid lærer man ret tidligt i folkeskolen, at dette ikke er nogen gyldig måde at oversætte fra andre sprog på. Derimod skal man se på hele ordet - til tider hele sætningen - og ofte foretage en afvejning af mulighederne. Ved at slå ordet op i en ordbog, kan man således finde ud af, at begrebet svarer til det danske ord "ophavsret" - altså retten til et arbejde, man er ophav til.

Når du nævner sletning nr. 2 formoder jeg, at du henviser til File:Jabbul.jpg. Ved at følge kilden erklæres det i bunden af siden "All rights reserved. All Pictures are copyright of their respective owners." Når man så besøger [7] fotografen, er der stadigvæk intet, der tyder på, at billedet skulle være frit. --|EPO| ^da: 19:04, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Oh, boy, -du ved selv hvor stort et arbejde det er at gå igennem alle billederne igen og uploade dem. I de fleste tilfælde har jeg dem slet ikke på min computer længere, men skal først downloade dem . I tilfældet med DONG's eget foto af Horns Rev Havmøllepark, så har jeg meget svært ved at se, at et sådant STATSEJET selskab skulle have noget imod [for slet ikke at tale om the guts to issue any complaints towards the righteous people (who are footing the bill) and there rights to see what is going on at Horns Rev].Jeg er slet ikke i tvivl om at jeg finder en måde at vise dette billede igen. Og det er her jeg mener , at det er unødig krakilsk at slette dette ene billede ud af Commons mere end 5 millioner filer, fordi mine motiver er rent oplysningsmæssige og at forbedre artiklerne. Og vi jhar begge en interesse i at artiklerne på da-wiki bliver forbedret. Derfor burde du have handlet med konsuite, og vendt det blinde øje til nu f.eks dette billede af Horns Rev, men også grafen fra Danmarks Nationalbank, fordi det er ikke sandsynligt at nogle vil ændre filen, og hvis de gør så kan vi fjerne den ændrede fil, ikke denne graf taget direkte fra Nationalbanken, som i aller højeste grad tjener et oplysningsmæssigt formål, som både Nationalbanken og vi andre med interesse i Danmarks økonomi er interesset i at få koimmunikeret ud.Jeg synes eller jeg havde fundet en vældoig god licens, som gjorde det klart at filen vart hjemmehørende i Danmark og at alle [ i udlandet] ikke uden videre havde ret til at gøre noget ved den.77.215.83.48 08:45, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Såfremt afgørelsen skulle blive omstødt, vil det være muligt at gendanne billederne.

Men ud fra dit indlæg virker det som om, at du ikke har læst mit svar grundigt nok. Derfor vil jeg tillade mig at henlede opmærksomheden på et bestemt afsnit:

Licensen skal tillade ændringer. Det er komplet irrelevant, hvorvidt andre personer vil benytte sig af det. Regelsættet kan koges ned til en ret klar formulering: Der skal tillades uindskrænket kopiering, brug og redigering. Overholdes én af disse betingelser ikke, kvalificerer det sig til sletning.

At DONG er statsejet ændrer på ingen måde ved sagen. Jf. lov om ophavsret gælder ingen særlige betingelser for værker, der udgives af staten, regionerne, kommunerne eller af organisationer, der ejes af disse. Dog er love, bekendtgørelser og tilsvarende fritagede for ophavsret. Alt andet er omfattet af de almindelige regler for ophavsret, hvis der ikke er angivet andet.

Det er jo stadigvæk ulovligt at gå over for rødt i et fodgængerfelt, selvom det er usandsynligt, at man bliver straffet for det. Hvorvidt DONG ville rejse en sag for overtrædelse af ophavsretten skal jeg ikke vurdere - heldigvis.

Reglerne er særdeles klare: Overholdes betingelserne ikke, skal billedet slettes. Dette skyldes bl.a., at Wikimedia (der formelt set ejer Wikipedia og Commons) ikke ejer nogen formue til at betale omkostninger til en advokat eller retsopgør. Alle indtægter anvendes til drift, vedligehold og nyindkøb af computerudstyr, så projekterne fortsat kan fungere.

Hvis du fortsat er uenig i min sletning, skal du i stedet arbejde for at ændre den generelle rettighedspolitik. Dette kan du eksempelvis gøre ved at oprette et debatindlæg på f.eks. Meta-Wiki. Men du skal må også meget gerne tage kontakt til kulturministeren med henblik på at fremsætte et lovforslag, der skal få fritaget alle offentlige værker for ophavsret. Sådan en lov anvender man med stor succes i bl.a. USA. --|EPO| ^da: 14:24, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Could you please explain...

Could you please explain what happened to File:Captured documents, Zawar Kili -b.jpg? At 04:24, 27 September 2009 you left a note on my talk page warning me that the file might be deleted "shortly". But the deletion log shows you deleted the file within one minute of the invitation to discuss its possible deletion on its talk page.

You realize that your deletion of the image, and its talk page, makes a meaningful discussion impossible?

You have the advantage of me, because you can see the image, its original source, the description I put, etc. And I cannot. In general it is my understanding that the republication of a public domain image by a for profit enterprise does not transform that image into a proprietary image.

Candidly Geo Swan (talk) 13:58, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

In particular, please note, the tag you left, when instantiated, says:

"...The file you added will soon be deleted. If you believe this image is not a derivative work, please explain why on the image description page."

Is this the image you deleted? Geo Swan (talk) 14:21, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

The term "shortly" is written by the standard template to notify uploaders. I have not deleted its talk page. Yes as an administrator I have access to the informations provided on the deleted image's page.

It is a derivative work by the original photographer - not you. The original poster depicted must be documented to be free if derivatives of it should be allowed here. --|EPO| ^da: 16:45, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

No offense, but I can't help wondering whether your deletion was overly hasty. Did you consider the general copyright status of images made in Afghanistan? Geo Swan (talk) 00:15, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

My bad - you are absolutely right. It seems that there is no copyright in Afghanistan at the moment. I must have been sleeping or something like that to not see such an obvious point. --|EPO| ^da: 17:24, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:Tanky legionářů.JPG

Good day im dont understand, why im need permission - this file it part of "press infromation". beascue, it is PB and it not coveret a Ukrainian copyright law. --Fredy.00 (talk) 22:13, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

According to the page history the copyright tag was disputed one month ago with the reason: "why should it be PD-Ukraine, when it's a Czech work?" --|EPO| ^da: 08:18, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Request for help with licensing photo's.

You tagged two photo's I uploaded.

File:Rabbi Yitzchak Ginsburgh.jpg was send to me from the personal files of rabbi Ginsburgh by his secretary, with the explicit understanding that there would be no copyrights to it whatsoever.

I indicated the source of File:Naomi Ragen (no idea why this is redlinked) as http://www.naomiragen.com/Photos.htm, and you can see there that these file may be downloaded. In addition I have an e-mail from Naomi Ragen herself, which I have forwarded now to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org.

If an editor like me (with a lot! of experience on Wikipedia and an IQ of 140) hasn't been able to properly address all concerns of WikiMedia even when he tried his best, that means that something about the instructions is really amiss. I'd like to kindly request you to help me out here. As to the picture of the rabbi, an e-mail from his secretary will do?

Signing with a profound dislike for WikiMedia bureaucracy, Debresser (talk) 06:25, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

The problem is that I can't read those e-mails you have received. Unfortunately I can only read e-mails sent to me. But if you forward those e-mails to OTRS they can be reviewed - and hopefully accepted. If an OTRS volunteer accepts the permission he/she will mark the file(s) as having an OTRS permission.

Unfortunately there are plenty of examples of websites that allow their works to be "downloaded", but are not free. Just because it can be downloaded doesn't mean that it may be used for any purpose whatsoever. Therefore I tagged the Naomi Ragen photo.

Now I'm not trying to offend you - but: If you have a lot of Wikipedia experience and an IQ of 140 then I don't understand why you tagged the a photo you are not the author of as your own work? Also you should know not to remove warning templates without discussion.

If you have an official statement from the rabbi's secretray please forward that to OTRS too. --|EPO| ^da: 16:53, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:Copenhagen Police Scania barricade remover.jpg

FYI så er ovenstående faktisk et låne-køretøj fra Norge og ikke et køretøj der tilhører CPH politi jf. denne forum-tråd på BF. MV Henrik (Talk · Contributions · E-mail) 07:48, 18 December 2009 (UTC)