User talk:Fredriksson67

Welcome to Wikimedia Commons, Fredriksson67!

First steps tutorial Our first steps tour and our FAQ will help you a lot after registration. They explain how to customize the interface (for example the language), how to upload files and our basic licensing policy. You don't need technical skills in order to contribute here. Be bold contributing here and assume good faith for the intentions of others. This is a wiki—it is really easy. Getting help More information is available at the community portal. You may ask questions at the help desk, village pump or on IRC channel irc:wikimedia-commons #wikimedia-commons (direct access). You can also contact an administrator on their talk page. If you have a specific copyright question, ask at Commons talk:Licensing.		Goodies, tips and tricks Put Babel boxes on your user page so others know what languages you can speak and indicate your graphic abilities. All your uploads are stored in your personal gallery Please sign your name on Talk pages by typing ~~~~ Use the CommonSense tool to find good categories for your files (then other people can find them too!) To link to an image page without embedding the image, type: [[:Image:Foo.jpg]], which produces: Image:Foo.jpg If you're copying files from another project, be sure to use the CommonsHelper Made a mistake? Did you want to rename or move a file? Simply upload the file again and mark the old one like this: {{bad name|correct name}} For more information read the full deletion guidelines.
(P.S. Would you like to provide feedback on this message?)

Image:Conf54-03_march-54.jpg

Image deletion warning

Image:Conf54-03_march-54.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 image, 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. In all cases, please do not take the deletion request personally. It is never intended as such. Thank you!

abf /talk to me/ 17:06, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Image:Hush-hush_1955_11.jpg

Image deletion warning

Image:Hush-hush_1955_11.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 image, 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. In all cases, please do not take the deletion request personally. It is never intended as such. Thank you!

abf /talk to me/ 18:24, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Copyright violations

---

Hello Fredriksson67,

You have uploaded several images that are copyright violations and you have done so despite our requests not to do so, and despite our instructions. If you do not stop uploading pictures that are not free, your account will be blocked. See Commons:Licensing for the copyright policy on Wikimedia Commons. You may also find Commons:Image casebook useful. Please leave me a message if you have further questions.  Cecil (talk) 18:36, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

You have been indefinitely blocked from editing Commons for the following reason: copyfauting, uploading unfree files massively after warnings. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may add {{unblock|(enter your reason here) ~~~~}} below this message explaining clearly why you should be unblocked. See also the block log. For more information, see Appealing a block.

This user has been blocked indefinitely. See block log.
(toolbox: contributions • page moves • current autoblocks)

Dear Fredriksson67,

You have uploaded multiple non-free images under invalid licences, which is a sign that you have not understood our licencing policy. Uploading files that have to be deleted creates a lot of work for other users, therefore you have been blocked indefinitely.

This is not a sanction, only a way to prevent you from doing something harmful. The block will be lifted on your request, provided you give a written statement that you have read, understood and accepted our copyright policies.

You are still able to edit your talk page. If you don't speak English, please contact an administrator who speaks your language.

Thank you for your understanding.

---

Deutsch | English | français | suomi | português | +/−

abf /talk to me/ 18:41, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

And just for your information: should you now create a new account and continue with your actions, we have your IP-address. I'm not above informing the real copyright owner that somebody takes his work and releases it under a free licence. -- Cecil (talk) 18:44, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm totally new to this, so I didn't see the warnings you gave me. I didn't scroll down to see the message, only saw the top and thought it was some general help page. Sorry! Have seen it now, but still don't understand.

I must apparently have done something wrong uploading magazine covers. Maybe I chose the wrong settings somewhere on the uploading page?

The covers of the scandal magazines come from ebay.com, from the pictures people upload when they are trying to sell the item. This means that the pictures are long gone now, from the net. To my knowledge there is no copyright attached to the pictures at ebay.com. And the magazines themselves are defunct since many years, which means that there are no one left that have the copyright.

If you want to know the purpose of uploading these old magazine covers, it's for an article I'm about to write for the Swedish Wikipedia on Confidential magazine and other scandal rags. It's also for changing some mistakes in the English version of the article on L.A. Confidential by James Ellroy, where they say that Hush-Hush magazine is purely fictional, which is not correct.

Even if I'm permanently blocked because of some big infringement on some rule, please tell me what that is as I don't understand your message about "non PD-self".

Given the information above, what is the settings i should have regarding copyright?

I have read and accepted the copyright policies, but is not yet really sure if I've fully understood them :-)

Cheers/Chris

current IP address is 83.250.100.142 and the block ID is #19609

Fredriksson67 (talk) 19:43, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

I unblocked you for now. Please read {{PD}} and dont upload any more magazine-cover till the issue is resolved clearly abf /talk to me/ 11:03, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

All images restored. Sorry that you were blocked. In case of uncertain copyright issue, upload only one image and settle this before uploading more. But undefinite block is really not appropriate here. Yann (talk) 11:28, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

For discussion/conclusion of the cover-subject, see below: (http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Undeletion_requests#Confidential_and_Hush-Hush:_magazine_covers_from_the_1950.E2.80.99s)

Confidential and Hush-Hush: magazine covers from the 1950’s

I want to raise a question concerning some magazine covers from the 1950’s. It’s about : http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/Image:Conf54-03_march-54.jpg

According to Commons:Licensing#United_States ”Anything published before January 1, 1964 and not renewed is in the public domain”. After a search at http://www.scils.rutgers.edu/~lesk/copyrenew.html I have found no renewal for Confidential or Hush-Hush. The magazine covers I uploaded were all produced before 1964. Would the magazine covers from Confidential from the 50’s be correctly uploaded if {{Template:PD-US-not_renewed}} is attached to it?

Please compare my magazine covers with the scanned pages at Category:Good_Housekeeping What is the difference between my scanned pages and these scanned pages? Neither has renewed copyright, both are produced between 1923 and 1964 and aren’t both therefore under public domain in the US?

If you want to know the purpose of uploading these old magazine covers (Confidential and Hush-Hush), it's for an article I'm about to write for the Swedish Wikipedia on Confidential magazine and other scandal rags. It's also for changing some mistakes in the English version of the article on L.A. Confidential , where it’s assumed that Hush-Hush magazine is purely fictional, which is not correct. They are also for illustrating the article on Robert Harrison (publisher), which I thought I should write as I’ve already covered the subject in other media.

If you want to see the covers I’m talking about, kindly see my blog, where I’ve written an essay on the subject (the text is in Swedish): http://nekulturny.blogspot.com/2008/03/skvallerjournalistiken-jubilerar.html

No matter what conclusion you reach – thanks for the good work you’re doing and excuse me if I clutter this page with something that might be obvious to those with more copyright knowledge than me. (This was my first upload at Commons, and I was a bit distressed that I was immediately banned :-)

Cheers/ Fredriksson67 (talk) 01:00, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

First let me say I'm sorry to see you were blocked over this, it looks like at least possibly a misunderstanding since you may have missed warnings and the admins thought you were deliberately disregarding them. Cecil and ABF probably need to review COM:MELLOW again. :) Second, as to the covers themselves, where you went in the weeds was using PD-self... that was so obviously incorrect that it set off alarm bells, no doubt. We get a lot of blatant copyright violating material uploaded with claims like "I did this myself" and the like. Third, based on your analysis, I agree... if these copyrights were not renewed, and it can be fairly easily shown that they were not (if the place you searched is fairly authoritative for re-registrations...? I think it is but am not an expert) then yes, these all should be undeleted and tagged with {{PD-US-not renewed}} as you suggest. I'm not sure the analogy you draw with the Good Housekeeping pages and covers is 100% correct, as those were never registered rather than not renewed, I don't think... but it's close, and I agree in spirit with your reasoning. I'd like to see more discussion before I just undeleted, but that's my thinking. ++Lar: t/c 04:19, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

FYI: I would never block a new user indef unless there is some really serious reason for it. Unfortunately ABF was faster, otherwise it would have been three days, which help a lot when users totally ignores warnings, uses invalid licences and uploads without stopping no matter how many messages and even though there are problems. But if you think that I'm not mellow enough than I can do the same thing as Patrícia and Rocket. As long as "mellow" means that I have to accept sueable insults and just return a 'please be civil', I'll prefer to keep my backbone and not be mellow. So tell me either to leave this project or stop mentioning that word in connection with me. -- Cecil (talk) 00:55, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

I would not be not opposed to a 3 day block given the circumstances at the time. I agree, if there was no communication, and no other way to start it, what else can be done? Cecil, I'd rather not see you do anything to discontinue the good work you do, which is considerable. And yet I can still say that everyone needs a dose of mellow from time to time. If that gives offense I am sorry. No offense is intended. My talk is open, as always. ++Lar: t/c 12:24, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

I would suggest moving this discussion to user talks, no real need to discuss here.Mitch32^{(Want help? See here!)} 00:57, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

I hope Cecil’s references to “ sueable insults” don’t imply me and the messages I sent to Cecil and ABF after the incident. I believe they were very civil indeed. To give you an example of the tone:

”I'm totally new to this, so I didn't see the warnings you gave me. I didn't scroll down to see the message, only saw the top and thought it was some general help page. Sorry! Have seen it now, but still don't understand.” […] Even if I'm permanently blocked because of some big infringement on some rule, please tell me what that is as I don't understand your message about "non PD-self". […] I have read and accepted the copyright policies, but am not yet really sure if I've fully understood them :-)”

In a later message named “I don't understand... please answer me” I wrote:

“If I am completely delusional here, please enlighten me. And please unblock me – this mistake might have happened out of ignorance but I assure you it wasn’t out of malice. […] Cheers/Chris”

I don’t think Cecil or ABF blocked me out of malice, they were trying to keep this place clean, and I respect that. It was my ignorance that got me into this mess, as I honestly didn’t see the warnings but mistook them for general help pages because I didn’t scroll down the page to the messages.

I hope the fact that I haven’t continued uploading anything, but rather started a civil discussion on the matter instead, clearly indicates that I’m not only serious, but also willing to learn about the copyright issues to avoid future mistakes, as I really would like to contribute to this and other wiki-projects. And by the way, if you understand Swedish, you can now see my article on Confidential.

The only thing it lacks now is an illustration :-) Fredriksson67 (talk) 03:12, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

The link you mention is only for book renewals I think, not for periodicals or other classes, which were published in separate volumes (which unfortunately not all of which are online). However... the periodical renewals were put online, and the University of Pennsylvania has a nice summary page here (and the full records are here). According to that, Confidential and Hush-Hush never had any issues renewed. The one complication is that it was possible (though rare) for photographs to be registered (and therefore renewed) separately, and those (visual arts) renewal records are not online, though maybe that would be "contributions to periodicals", which are. I don't know if that is enough to keep them deleted though... presumably they were used on the covers with permission. Carl Lindberg (talk) 07:36, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Hypothetical renewals of copyrights of individual photographs should not matter. Undelete. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 13:03, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Most of the covers show 4 to 5 pics, among them a famous Marilyn photo in the last row. Do you dare to say: They are all fine and free today? With this pic (=the pic beneath "Sanningens Los Angeles värre än filmens") they made an exclusive story about Ava Gardner. So it was probably an expensive pic and therefore copyrighted as long as possible. I think, this case is too hairy for commons without an investigation bureau. Mutter Erde (talk) 13:51, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

What makes you think that 28 years later it would have been worth the trouble to renew copyright of a 1950's photo of Ava Gardner where it looks as if she is touching a guy with her toes? But anyway, this is not about that photo, it is about the magazine cover. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 11:17, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Many of these pics show the celebrities not beautiful as common. So they are something special. Some pics might be used even 30/40/50 years later. For example for a biography or Ava Gardner's memories as an old woman. If I were the author/paparazzi of some of such pics (for example of a young Paris Hilton), I would copyright them for more 28 years according to the then American law. Mutter Erde (talk) 13:01, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I take things back somewhat. Anything published 1951 or later would have been renewed in 1978 or later, which means the records are online at the U.S. Copyright Office and are therefore searchable. Carl Lindberg (talk) 16:03, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the tip, Carl. I’ve now searched the aforementioned database at U.S. Copyright Office. The search words I used were “Hush-Hush magazine” and “Hush-Hush” which turned up a lot of lullabies but no references to the magazine. The search for “Confidential magazine” warranted no hits and “Confidential” got me many songs and movie references but nothing in reference to the magazine. (There are of course articles published ABOUT Confidential magazine, but these are excluded, as they have nothing to do with the actual copyright issue concerning the magazine per se.) I also searched Confidential’s publisher Robert Harrison, its research director Marjorie Meade, and its editor Howard Rushmore, which turned up zilch and bubkes, to use the lingo of Confidential – i.e. nothing. Fredriksson67 (talk) 19:47, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Samuel Bernstein’s biography “Mr. Confidential” about Confidential magazine’s publisher Robert Harrison included “more than 75 pages of photos and reproductions of the magazine's stories and covers” (reference) This is of course in no way proof of anything, but may be an indication that the copyright is public domain today? (I imagine buying that much copyrighted material would be rather expensive and that if the material would still be under copyright Bernstein would include much less and settle for describing it instead.) / Fredriksson67 (talk) 20:16, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

I have now written the article on Robert Harrison (publisher), which also would be much enhanced by a picture of an actual Confidential-cover. I don't know if any of you reading this have the authority to make a decision on this matter, put it to a vote or just restore my gallery? Or do you think I just should restore it myself, tag it with {{Template:PD-US-not_renewed}} and refer to this discussion? // Fredriksson67 (talk) 00:46, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Undeleted Copyright not renewed according to Fredriksson67's research. Yann (talk) 11:08, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

These covers are composed works made of various images (photographs of drawings) for which we have absolutely no information. Undeleting these covers is irresponsible. Rama (talk) 13:06, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Yann, for restoring the pics. And thanks everybody else who participated in the discussion, antagonists and protagonists alike, because this has been a great learning experience for me. I'm impressed by the amount of knowledge you have on this subject and the manner in which you are running Commons. You are truly doing a great job. Cheers//Chris Fredriksson67 (talk) 17:23, 3 December 2008 (UTC)