User talk:EPO

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to: navigation, search

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

Image:Radiorama 12-2007.jpg[edit]

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)

Image:Rydbergformula.jpg[edit]

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)

Image:Ferdinand_Heinke.jpg[edit]

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)

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

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 + 70 years 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.

Image:Miller Chill.jpg[edit]

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)

Opening 1912 Stockholm Olympics.jpg[edit]

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)

Image:Sweden olympic team 1908.jpg[edit]

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)

I need help please[edit]

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)


Request for assistance[edit]

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)

Trademark[edit]

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)

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

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)

Adolf Eichmann[edit]

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)

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

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)

File:Sg-logo.jpg[edit]

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)

Big Nickel[edit]

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)

Pusleogpixi[edit]

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)

File:F berglund.jpg[edit]

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)

deleted photos from ft.dk[edit]

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)

To mere fra Århus Kommune[edit]

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)

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

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)

Tip: Categorizing images[edit]

Afrikaans | العربية | беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | català | čeština | dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | Ελληνικά | English | Esperanto | español | فارسی | suomi | français | galego | עברית | magyar | íslenska | italiano | 日本語 | ქართული | 한국어 | македонски | മലയാളം | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | norsk bokmål | polski | português | português do Brasil | română | русский | slovenčina | slovenščina | српски / srpski | svenska | українська | Tiếng Việt | 中文 | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−


Hello, EPO!

Tip: Add categories to your images

Thanks a lot for contributing to the Wikimedia Commons! Here's a tip to make your uploads more useful: Why not add some categories to describe them? This will help more people to find and use them.

Here's how:

1) If you're using the UploadWizard, you can add categories to each file when you describe it. Just click "more options" for the file and add the categories which make sense:

Uploadwizard-categories.png

2) You can also pick the file from your list of uploads, edit the file description page, and manually add the category code at the end of the page.

[[Category:Category name]]

For example, if you are uploading a diagram showing the orbits of comets, you add the following code:

[[Category:Astronomical diagrams]]
[[Category:Comets]]

This will make the diagram show up in the categories "Astronomical diagrams" and "Comets".

When picking categories, try to choose a specific category ("Astronomical diagrams") over a generic one ("Illustrations"). Pro-tip: The CommonSense tool can help you find the best category for your image.

Thanks again for your uploads! More information about categorization can be found in Commons:Categories, and don't hesitate to leave a note on the help desk.

BotMultichillT 11:52, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

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

Hvorfor er du gået igennem mine billeder[edit]

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 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 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)

Could you please explain...[edit]

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)

File:Tanky legionářů.JPG[edit]

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)

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

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)

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

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)

Salu2[edit]

Quisiera saber por que razón fue eliminada la imagen de la mascota de Santiago de cuba y que puedo hacer para que cumpla los requisitos de wikipedia.

Anierc

File:Santiago es Santiago.png was uploaded with no license and no source. Same day it was uploaded it was tagged as missing a license giving 7 days to find a license. As no license (or source) had been provided I assumed the logo was unfree and deleted it. --|EPO| da: 16:55, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

File:Lasur blauer engel.jpg[edit]

  1. My talk page, @ 16:57, 1 March 2010 (UTC) The file you added will soon be deleted.
  2. File history, @ 16:57, 1 March 2010 EPO (talk | contribs) deleted "File:Lasur blauer engel.jpg" ‎ (Derivative of non-free content)

Is zero seconds considered "soon"? One could at least give me a single opportunity to check usage for this file on local Wikipedias and arrange for a substitution... --Abdull (talk) 18:12, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Sorry to tell you, but I'm quite $%&§ right now. I find this whole automatic procedure destructive for all projects using media from Wikimedia Commons. How should a Wiki layman be able to find usages of deleted files if references to it are also deleted extremely fast, therefore rendering "Check usage on other projects" useless? This has a sure potential of breaking the semantics within articles, unnecessarily lowering the quality of sister projects in whole. --Abdull (talk) 18:25, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
I am sorry for the inconvenience the deletion has caused you. However as the file was not free there was no good reason to keep it: It was in violation of Wikimedia Commons policies.
When deleting a file there is always some risk that it will be missed for various reasons. I fully understand your concern. But it must be the contributers at the individual projects who are responsible for ensuring the quality of these articles. A quick look in the deletion log shows 50 file deletions in the last 44 minutes - roughly one per minute. It would be extremely ineffective if administrators should check the usage of each file and consider its usage and context at every article. Especially if a free alternative cannot be obtained. Of course if a free alternative is already uploaded replacements should take place instead.
The bot removal are done in order to avoid red links in articles. Many of these deletions would not be noticed then leaving a red link to the user. I personally believe the existing way is better for all. --|EPO| da: 21:05, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Undeletion request[edit]

Please see Commons:Undeletion_requests/Current_requests#Flopped_image. -- User:Docu at 00:40, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Photo of Bjørn Lomborg[edit]

Hi, I can't find a mention of a free license or any copyright mention for the pictures on the website of Bjørn Lomborg, so I nominated File:Bjørn Lomborg small.JPG for deletion for missing evidence of permission. Regards Hekerui (talk) 17:22, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

And I have added a link to archive.org proving that the works are free. --|EPO| da: 18:21, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

File:Emil's_wooden_figures.jpg[edit]

Commons-emblem-issue.svg File:Emil's_wooden_figures.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 | বাংলা | 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 | українська | Tiếng Việt | 中文 | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−

Pieter Kuiper (talk) 20:07, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

File:MSJ.en.svg[edit]

This was not a copyright violation. Please undelete. Also File:MSJ.es.svg and File:MSJ.de.svg. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 17:59, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

I made an undeletion request. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 18:44, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

OTRS[edit]

For this file and this file, they need to have an OTRS ticket verified, because while the raw radar data qualifies as PD-NOAA, the display of the data was created using a copyrighted program, GR2Analyst. The OTRS ticket they can be verified under is the same one used for File:TNsupercells41009.png and File:Swilmcv3.png (this ticket), which permits screenshots (screencaps) of GR2Analyst created radar images. Thanks in advance, Ks0stm If you reply here, please leave me a {{Talkback}} message on my talk page. 18:10, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Brookgreen Gardens[edit]

Please take a look at this:
Commons:Undeletion_requests/Current_requests#http:.2F.2Fcommons.wikimedia.org.2Fw.2Findex.php.3Ftitle.3DBrookgreen_Gardens.26oldid.3D15276628
Thanks,
     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 22:59, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

@ EPO: Have you deleted more US sculptures without a DR ? Please restore them without extra invitation. 78.55.155.85 11:13, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

File:95siki-kansen2.jpg File:95siki-kansen.jpg[edit]

These photographs had been surely taken before 1945, presumption 1937.

These photographic images were published before December 31st 1956, or photographed before 1946 and not published for 10 years thereafter, under jurisdiction of the Government of Japan. Thus these photographic images are considered to be public domain according to article 23 of old copyright law of Japan and article 2 of supplemental provision of copyright law of Japan. Per Template:PD-Japan-oldphoto

--Soica2001 (talk) 15:54, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

What I would like to know why is it "surely taken before 1945, presumption 1937". Can you sure that these photographs were not published in 1957 or later? --|EPO| da: 11:35, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
The airplane that is reflected in two photographs is written, "ホ-107". This is a meaning of "Ryujo No.107". The period when A4N was operated with Aircraft carrier Ryujo was from 1936 to 1938 beginning. I guess that this photograph was taken for this period.
All military aircrafts of Japan were destroyed by the instruction of Allied Forces from September through October of 1945. There is no possibility to have been taken a picture since 1946. The copyright has disappeared to the photograph taken before 1945 by 1966 regardless of time of making public.--Soica2001 (talk) 12:32, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
I find it likely that it was photographed at that time. However can we be sure that it was published at a later time? That is the problem with using more or less random sites for sources.. --|EPO| da: 20:21, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
It is not important issue when published. As mentioned earlier, these photographs were taken could not since 1946. And All of them were became public domain until 1966 by old copyright law of Japan. --Soica2001 (talk) 11:30, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
Let's just close this discuussion. It will take me too much time to explain my point as I'm currently not visiting the site very often. --|EPO| da: 09:58, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
OK. Please take the future more carefully.--Soica2001 (talk) 08:58, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Looking for an image of the Jutland stallion[edit]

For the en:WP article on the subject. Also any other help. Need content. RSes. Even Danish!

en:Jutland (horse)

TCO (talk) 19:35, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Slette alle mine billeder... delete all my pictures[edit]

Hej EPO.

Kan du ikke slette alle de billeder jeg har uploadet, da en eller anden gufas nu mener at mit fulde navn skal stå i profilen. Jeg aner ikke hvorfor det kun er på de seneste billeder af Christina Pedersen der er problemer. - men mit fulde navn skal ikke stå nogen steder i min profil, da det var grunden til at min historik blev slettet på da-wiki, da vi dengang havde lidt problemer med John Peters. - og efterfølgende kan I slette min profil, da jeg ikke gider bruge min tid på at tage billeder og uploade til commons med det efterfølgende latterlige bøvl!! Hvis i ikke sletter dem, kan jeg så selv gøre noget for at trække tilladelser etc. tilbage, så de bliver ubrugelige for commons? De bedste hilsner fra Pixi Uno - --Pusleogpixi (talk) 01:45, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Du behøves ikke at have dit navn stående, hvis du ikke ønsker det. Men du kan jo nok se både problemet og det praktiske i det: Hvis der er uoverensstemmelse mellem brugernavnet og fotografens navn, kan der opstå forvirringer. Mulige løsninger kunne være:
  • Du undlader at angive "eget værk" - og så indsender en "tilladelse" på almindelig vis. Denne kan der så henvises til på fremtidige billeder.
  • Du anvender fremover dit brugernavn som fotografens navn og angiver "eget værk".
Det er ikke teknisk muligt at slette en brugerkonto. Men lad os prøve at finde en løsning, der kan tilgodese alle parter. Hvis alt andet fejler, kan vi diskutere, hvad der så skal ske. --|EPO| da: 15:13, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Sletningsforslag med konsekvenser for PD-Danmark50[edit]

Hej EPO, en række billeder, som jeg har uploaded fra KB's portrætsamling under PD-Danmark50-licensen, er blevet indstillet til sletning, og der kører en diskussion her. Hvis udgangen på det bliver, at de slettes, vil jeg indstille PD-Danmark50-skabelonen og billeder under denne licens til sletning. Det er utåleligt, hvis subjektive vurderinger af værkshøjde fra tilfældige brugere skal afgøre, om et billede under denne licens slettes eller ej. Så hellere slippe for licensskabelonen. Om Dansk Wikipedia i så fald vil fortsætte med skabelonen, og om de slettede billeder kan overføres dertil, må være et åbent spørgsmål.

Jeg har argumenteret for, at så længe der ikke er noget klart juridisk svar på forskellen mellem et fotografisk billede og et fotografisk værk (se fx her, "Selve sondringen mellem fotografibeskyttelse og værksbeskyttelse er ikke belyst i retspraksis. En klar definition findes heller ikke.") bør Commons anlægge den mest inkluderende fortolkning, dvs. betragte de givne billeder som fotografiske billeder. Håber du vil bidrage til diskussionen. --Urbandweller (talk) 23:04, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Opdatering: Sletningen blev heldigvis ikke til noget, så ovenstående er ikke længere relevant. Mvh. --Urbandweller (talk) 10:19, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Protection[edit]

This was already fully (cascade) protected because it was transcluded on the Main Page. In effect, your protection wouldn't have solved anything. Killiondude (talk) 07:25, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

I had a feeling about that.. Couldn't see that it was protected though it did seem pretty unlogic. So no surprise there. --|EPO| da: 14:54, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

A fire extinguisher for you[edit]

Feuerloescher.jpg Fire extinguisher award
A fire extinguisher for your everlasting efforts of putting out verbal fires on Commons. Henrik (heb: Talk · Contributions · E-mail) 13:29, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Er disse licenser OK på dansk Wikipedia?[edit]

Hej EPO. Kan jeg få dig til at kaste et blik på disse to billeder: File:Armenian Karen Jeppe Jemaran School Aleppo 1973.jpg og File:Karen Jeppe with Misak and Hajim Pahsa near Aleppo.jpg. Jeg vil gerne bruge dem i Karen Jeppe, men kan ikke helt gennemskue, om licensen er OK på dansk Wiki. M.v.h. --Brams (talk) 17:57, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Licenser, som er tilladte på Wikimedia Commons er også tilladte på alle øvrige projekter. Dette skyldes dels at man her anvender strengere tolkninger end flere lokale projekter, samt det er stedet med den største mediesamling blandt projekterne.
I de konkrete tilfælde er jeg i tvivl om hvorvidt betingelserne for den anvendte licens er opfyldt, så jeg opretter et sletningsforslag. --|EPO| da: 22:20, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Et spørgsmål om Deletion Request?[edit]

Hej EPO - ...jeg har netop modtaget en deletion request vedrørende en billede af Helle Thorning-Schmidt! ... jeg forstår det bare ikke? ... hvem?, hvad?, hvorfor? ... der er noget lummert over sagen! ... det nye billede, som "nogen" hellere ser anvendt, forekommer at være et "officielt" Soc-billede oprindelig hentet og bearbejdet fra en Helle Thorning Flickr-stream (uden fotograf-navn i øvrigt) ... men jeg forstår ikke, hvorfor det skulle begrunde at mit billede skulle slettes! ... der skulle vel være plads nok på Commons til begge billeder! - jeg undres! ... --Moeng (talk) 09:34, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Begrundelsen "der er et bedre billede" er ikke et gyldigt argument i en sletningsdiskussion. Vedkommende er ude på dybt vand. --|EPO| da: 10:13, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
... fin kommentar EPO! ... --Moeng (talk) 11:40, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
... nice, good and prompt reaction, thanks from --Moeng (talk) 16:36, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

A Rose for you[edit]

Rosa Perfect Moment 1.jpg A Rose from Béria
Your frist Wiki Rose:) Béria Lima msg 11:16, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
Thank you very much for this lovely rose. I will always remember my first wiki rose :) --|EPO| da: 11:18, 8 October 2011 (UTC)


Category:S-train stations in Denmark[edit]

Commons-emblem-issue.svg Category:S-train stations in Denmark has been listed at Commons:Categories for discussion so that the community can discuss ways in which it should be changed. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

If you created this category, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for discussion 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. If the category is up for deletion because it has been superseded, consider the notion that although the category may be deleted, your hard work (which we all greatly appreciate) lives on in the new category.

In all cases, please do not take the category discussion personally. It is never intended as such. Thank you!


Беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | Deutsch | English | Español | Français | עברית | Magyar | Italiano | 日本語 | Македонски | Polski | Português | Русский | +/−

--MGA73 (talk) 16:15, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

File:Ambulance Neutral.png[edit]

Hej EPO, Jeg er ikke sikker på, at jeg forstår dette kategori-skift. Hvordan kan du se, at ambulancen er fra Falck? MVH heb [T C E] 12:56, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Designet er Falcks standarddesign til deres Mercedes-Benz. Der er nogle detaljeforskelle: Arbejdslys og blink på siderne, søgelygte og antenne på taget, desuden er ruden ind til bårerummet fjernet. Brugeren er ved en tidligere diskussion om dette emne sporet til at være ansat i Falck. Se denne ambulance til reference. --|EPO| da: 15:31, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Categories moving[edit]

Hello,

here are the list of categories that are misspelled. You will find the current name in the first column and the name to replace in the second one.

Thank your very much in advance.

Best. --Abaddon1337 (talk) 15:14, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Current one New one
Category:Echallens Category:Échallens
Category:Château d'Echallens Category:Château d'Échallens
Category:Hôtel de ville d'Echallens Category:Hôtel de ville d'Échallens
Category:Lausanne-Echallens-Bercher Category:Railway Lausanne-Échallens-Bercher
Category:Echandens Category:Échandens
Category:Echichens Category:Échichens
Category:Eclagnens Category:Éclagnens
Category:Eclépens Category:Éclépens
Category:Ecublens Category:Écublens, Vaud
Category:Ecublens, Fribourg Category:Écublens, Fribourg
Category:Ependes, Vaud Category:Épendes, Vaud
Category:Ependes, Fribourg Category:Épendes, Fribourg
Category:Epesses Category:Épesses
Category:Etoy Category:Étoy
Category:Etagnières Category:Étagnières
I am relatively new on commons. and my english is not as good as that. So I'm not sure that's what's expected but, thank you very much for the job. Here is for you :
Happy cookie
Se dig næste gang --Abaddon1337 (talk) 16:10, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Discussion on Danish author's rights law §63/§70[edit]

Hi EPO, A discussion on Danish author's rights law §63/§70 in relation to portrait-photos have started on Commons:Deletion requests/File:Aage Bohr.jpg. Given your good knowledge of Danish author's rights law, I would like to encourage you to participate. --heb [T C E] 07:06, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

A cup of coffee for you![edit]

A small cup of coffee.JPG Thanks for your help. Pine 09:47, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Your opinion would be appreciated[edit]

Given your vast knowledge of intellectual property laws and Denmark, I would like to encourage you to participate in Commons:Village pump/Copyright#Danish_open_public_geographic_data. In kind regards, Henrik/heb [T C E] 10:22, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Category:Kirker I Guldborgsund Kommune[edit]

Hej EPO. Der skal vist en administrator til at flytte en kategori - jeg kan i hvert fald ikke finde funktionen. I Category:Kirker I Guldborgsund Kommune burde der stå lille 'i' i stedet for stort 'I'. Vil du flytte den? M.v.h. --Brams (talk) 18:53, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Så bliver den ged barberet. --|EPO| da: 11:37, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

File:Claus Grønkjær Christensen.JPG[edit]

Hej EPO. Du har mere styr på licensproblematikker end jeg, så kan du ikke lige se på File:Claus Grønkjær Christensen.JPG? Brugeren clausgc angiver det som "eget værk", men det kan vel dårligt passe, når det er ham selv, der optræder som motiv. Jeg har på hans Wikipedia-brugerdiskussion da:Brugerdiskussion:CGC bedt ham om at få fotografens tilladelse og henvist til OTRS, men indtil videre skal billedet vel mærkes? Mvh. Amjaabc (talk) 07:39, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Jeg tænker det samme. Men det kan naturligvis ikke udelukkes fuldstændigt, selvom det forekommer tvivlsomt. Derfor har jeg markeret licensen som tvivlsom og dermed indstillet filen til sletning. {{npd}} er ganske velegnet til dette formål. --|EPO| da: 08:42, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Port friendly billede[edit]

Hej,

Det billede jeg har lagt op er blevet markeret som copyright violation. Det er det på ingen måde, da jeg kender ejerne.

Billedet hedder: Port_Friendly1.jpg

Det findes også her: http://a3.ec-images.myspacecdn.com/profile01/141/7df63880f8934c56b611d40b28677b8c/p.jpg

Hvordan får jeg det tilføjet igen på denne side?: http://da.wikipedia.org/wiki/Port_Friendly

Kan du hjælpe mig?

Mvh

Selvom du kender rettighedshaver(ne) er det fortsat en overtrædelse af ophavsretten, såfremt der ikke er indhentet en forudgående tilladelse til anvendelse under de krævede licensvilkår.
Rettighedshaver(ne) skal indsende en bekræftelse til OTRS. --|EPO| da: 10:06, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Foto af Østre Landsret[edit]

Hej EPO, du har lagt dette billede: http://da.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fil:%C3%98stre_Landsret_E.jpg op. Vi er ved at redigere vores lokalhistoriske årbog, RINGSTEDbogen og vil gerne bruge billedet, hvis det er ok med dig? Hvordan er det i så fald korrekt at kreditere? Bare www.wikipedia.dk, hele url'en eller vil du gerne have dit navn på?

RINGSTEDbogen er non-profit sådan at forstå, at de midler, der indtjenes bruges på at producere næste års bog. Eventuelt overskud bruges på at støtte lokale borgeres brug af og viden om kulturhistorien, f.eks. ved at udbyde skrivekurser til potentielle forfattere.

Mange hilsner Anette Månsson Ringsted Museum og Arkiv ama@ringsted.dk - 2257 8197

Dokumentation for at handle på andres vegne[edit]

Hej EPO

Jeg har kontaktet ejeren af http://www.jernbanen.dk med henblik på brug af et bestemt billede, som han i sit forum giver lov til at bruge på Wikipedia, nærmere betegnet med henblik på artiklen da:Litra (tog). Jeg har fortalt ham det grundlæggende om betingelserne og gengivet en standardtilladelse. Men der står på Commons:OTRS, at hvis jeg indsender tilladelsen på hans vegne, kan jeg blive afkrævet dokumentation for, at jeg har tilladelse til det. Hvordan skal jeg kunne dokumentere det? Er der en standardtekst, jeg kan bede ham udfylde? Og hvem skal sende dokumentationen ind og til hvem?

Jeg har ikke før prøvet at uploade fremmedes billeder. Men hvis jeg kan få afklaret spørgsmålene, kunne det måske gøre det nemmere at gøre det i fremtiden. --Dannebrog Spy (talk) 22:03, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Det er i princippet underordnet hvor og hvordan en licenstilladelse fremvises. Det vigtigste er jo at tilladelsen er i orden. Én løsning kunne jo blive at han indsender en tilladelse til OTRS hvor han bekræfter at det pågældende billede er udgivet under en fri licens. I så fald står det jo enhver frit at lægge billedet på Commons efterfølgende.
Selvom intentionen sikkert er fin, så er "fri afbenyttelse på Wikipedia" en noget uklar formulering. For i princippet giver tilladelsen jo så ikke lov til fri afbenyttelse uden for Wikipedia. Hvis han nu vælger en licens (f.eks. PD, CC, {{attribution}}), vil det være tilstrækkeligt at linke tilbage til siden hvor tilladelsen står. Så er det ikke nødvendigt med en mail til OTRS.
Håber det kan kaste lidt lys over sagen. Ellers må du jo råbe op igen. --|EPO| da: 10:05, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
Problemet har desværre løst sig selv, idet jeg har fået en mail om, at han ikke ønsker at bruge tid på det. Ærgeligt men også forståeligt i og med at det er så besværligt.
Så må jeg vel i stedet kigge efter billeder, hvor ophavsretten er udløbet. Men i den forbindelse vil jeg gerne spørge, om det gør en forskel, hvis det er andre, der har scannet billederne. F.eks. har jeg nogle cd'er med billeder liggende, hvor selve billederne er mindst 50 år gamle, men hvor andre har scannet dem senere. Giver indscanningen dem nogen form for rettigheder, eller kan jeg bare uploade dem med licenserne {{PD-Denmark50}}{{PD-1996}}? --Dannebrog Spy (talk) 12:53, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
Ja det var da godt nok en trist udvikling. Han er ikke den første, og næppe heller den sidste. Når man sidder og kigger på det indefra, giver det mere mening. Men kravene er jo nødvendige netop fordi at billedet "risikerer" at blive genbrugt, og så skal alle være 100 % sikre på at det er i orden.
Nå.. Men at foretage indscanning modsvarer at tage en fotokopi. Det skaber ikke i sig selv et nyt værk og følger derfor rettighederne (eller manglen på samme) fra det oprindelige værk. Så hvis dine billederne er tilpas gamle (husk at vurdere for værkshøjde), kan du gøre som du vil med dem. --|EPO| da: 09:01, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
Med lidt forsinkelse hermed tak for svaret. Jeg har nu over et par omgange uploaded 18 billeder af københavnske sporvogne og et enkelt af et stoppested til Category:Trams in Copenhagen. De er alle taget I 1950'erne og omfatter typisk motiver fra endestationer og lignende, som kunne være blevet fotograferet adskillige gange hver dag dengang. For et par af dem kunne fotografen identificeres (han lever i øvrigt stadig i bedste velgående), men for de fleste er fotografen desværre ukendt. Men i og med at billederne efter mit skøn ikke har værkshøjde, betyder det mindre. --Dannebrog Spy (talk) 15:37, 27 October 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.
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 | বাংলা | 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 | українська | Tiếng Việt | 中文 | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−

Affected:

Eleassar (t/p) 08:11, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Happy Holidays[edit]

Christmas Belles at Crown - 11366677816.jpg Happy Holidays!
G'day, just a quick greeting wishing you and your family happy holidays and all the best for 2014. And of course, a big thank you for putting a leg up by doing what you do on Commons, and helping to make it the fantastic project that it is. Greetings from a warm west coast of Aussie. russavia (talk) 01:33, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

Image:Asbestos pipe insulation.jpg[edit]

I was hoping to use this image in a free building code field guide. However, the template I must use to create the individual entries does not allow for attribution. Given that the image will be used in an educational application created by a non-profit institution, for non-commercial purposes, are you willing to wave the attribution requirement?

[edit]

Hej Epo

Jeg har prøvet at skrive til permission commons fordi jeg gerne vil have uploaded et logo, som førhen er blevet slettet, da jeg ikke havde opgivet de korrekte licensoplysninger. Det drejer sig om Interfloras danske logo. Jeg har sidenhen kontaktet interflora, og fået lov til at bruge deres logo. Jeg vedhæfter her den udfyldte permisson som, jeg har fået fra Interfloras marketingdirektør.

Kan du hælpe mig, men at slette dette logo's "slettet" status?

I hereby affirm that I, Jan Oppermann, Marketing Director of Interflora Denmark,am the sole owner of the exclusive copyright of the danish Interflora logo. The logo is availale online here: http://www.interflora.dk/om-interflora/presse/logo/

I agree to publish the work under the free licence "Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported" and GNU Free Documentation License (unversioned, with no invariant sections, front-cover texts, or back-cover texts).] Licens tag: {{Not-PD-US-URAA}}

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 acknowledge that I cannot withdraw this agreement, and that the content may or may not be kept permanently on a Wikimedia project.

Jan Oppermann jo@interflora.dk Marketing Director og Interflora Denmark 31/03/2014

For at kunne gå videre med sagen, skal jeg kende den e-mailadresse, henvendelsen er sendt fra, samt datoen for afsendelse. Jeg antager at der er anvendt permission-commons. Her afventer lige pt. 408 mails på at blive besvaret, så der kan godt gå noget tid, inden man får bevæget sig igennem køen. Men hvis jeg kan finde netop din e-mail, kan jeg plukke den ud og flytte den til et andet sted med knap så meget trafik. --|EPO| da: 09:08, 4 April 2014 (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.
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 | বাংলা | 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 | українська | Tiếng Việt | 中文 | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−

Affected:


--  Gazebo (talk) 06:27, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

File:Graham Elvis Sure-1 512x512 PX.jpg[edit]

I noticed that you handled OTRS permission for this file. Unfortunately, I cannot find any free license mentioned in that ticket, so I have tagged it for deletion. Please leave your comments at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Graham Elvis Sure-1 512x512 PX.jpg. Anon126 ( ) 01:11, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

template:PD-art-100[edit]

Jeg synes at licensbeskrivelsen lyder mærkværdig se feks her : Rome,_From_Mount_Aventine "Dette er en troværdig, fotografisk gengivelse af et originalt todimensionelt kunstværk. Kunstværket er offentlig ejendom af følgende grund:" Det er formuleringen "Kunstværket er offentlig ejendom af følgende grund:" der er et problem, kunstværket er jo lige solgt for 280 millioner kr, så det er vel ikke offentlig ejendom? Mon ikke denne her formulering er bedre: "Kopier af kunstværket er offentlig ejendom af følgende grund"? Problemet findes sikkert også i andre templates af samme art. --Villy Fink Isaksen (talk) 15:28, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

'Offentlig ejendom' er oversættelsen af public domain, men jeg kan godt se at formuleringen ikke er den bedste. I tidernes morgen lød det glimrende. PD-art er udgangspunktet for mange underskabeloner, så jeg har blot rettet dér og så skulle den slå igennem de relevante steder. --|EPO| da: 09:37, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
Fandt lige en beskrivelse på dansk af "public domain" der er til at forstå, se her: http://aarhuswiki.dk/wiki/Fil:Carl_milton.jpg --Villy Fink Isaksen (talk) 10:51, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Hizb ut Tahrir picture[edit]

Hi,

We have used a picture you uploaded of a Hizb demo, alongside a book about them. This is on an educational website (not for profit - indeed all funding is via UK Research Council only). I hope we have listed the copyright correctly, please let us know via the contact us form if we haven't. Of course, I also tell you this as you wanted to know of uses of your pictures outside of Wikimedia.

Your picture: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hizb_ut-Tahrir#mediaviewer/File:Hizb_ut-Tahrir_demo_kbh.jpg Where we have used it: http://www.radicalisationresearch.org/uncategorized/radicalism-unveiled/ How you can contact us: http://www.radicalisationresearch.org/contact/

With many thanks.