User talk:Hangsna

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to: navigation, search
Welcome to Wikimedia Commons, Hangsna!
Afrikaans | Alemannisch | العربية | Asturianu | Azərbaycanca | Беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | Български | বাংলা | Català | Čeština | Dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | Zazaki | Ελληνικά | English | Esperanto | Español | Euskara | Estremeñu | فارسی | Suomi | Français | Frysk | Galego | עברית | हिन्दी | Hrvatski | Magyar | Հայերեն | Interlingua | Bahasa Indonesia | Italiano | 日本語 | ქართული | 한국어 | Latina | Lietuvių | Македонски | മലയാളം | मराठी | Bahasa Melayu | Plattdüütsch | नेपाली | Nederlands | Norsk bokmål | Occitan | Polski | Português | Português do Brasil | Română | Русский | Scots | Slovenčina | Slovenščina | Shqip | Српски / srpski | Svenska | Kiswahili | தமிழ் | ไทย | Türkçe | Українська | Vèneto | Tiếng Việt | 中文 | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | 中文(台灣)‎ | +/−

File:Ulla Lovisa Bjerne(-Biaudet).png[edit]

Беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | Български | Català | Čeština | Dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | Ελληνικά | English | Esperanto | Español | فارسی | Suomi | Français | Galego | Magyar | Íslenska | Italiano | 日本語 | Македонски | മലയാളം | Nederlands | Norsk nynorsk | Polski | Português | Português do Brasil | Русский | Slovenščina | Svenska | Українська | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−

There seems to be a problem regarding the description and/or licensing of this particular file. It has been found that you've added in the image's description only a Template that's not a license and although it provides useful information about the image, it's not a valid license. Could you please resolve this problem, adding the license in the image linked above? You can edit the description page and change the text. Uploading a new version of the file does not change the description of the file. This page may give you more hints on which license to choose. Thank you.

This message was added automatically by Nikbot, if you need some help about it please read the text above again and follow the links in it, if you still need help ask at the ? Commons:Help desk in any language you like to use. --Nikbot 09:43, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Strange. something wrong when uploaded, its Template:PD-Sweden-photo and its fixed now. /Hangsna (talk) 09:49, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion[edit]

Episyrphus balteatus on blue flower.jpg
Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Episyrphus balteatus on blue flower.jpg, which was produced or nominated by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.

File:Miriam Bryant.jpg[edit]

{{File:Miriam Bryant.jpg}} High Contrast (talk) 12:00, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

This tag happened accidently - of yourse the image does not get deleted. But please insert in future our review-tag {{licensereview}} in order to countercheck it and get it clear forever. Regards, High Contrast (talk) 12:05, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Hm, do i need to add {{licensereview}} when i already added Source? /Hangsna (talk) 12:09, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
In general, yes. Well, this has the advantage that another user must look over it and confirms the license. As such, if the source homepage should move over the years we still have the confirmation and there is no reason to doubt the free CC-license even the source page is no longer available. The Commons experience shows that images get deleted due to the fact that the source homepage are gone and the licensing gets doubted by other users and thus deleted. --High Contrast (talk) 12:12, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
That makes sence, thanks for awnser and i will try to remember adding it in simular cases. /Hangsna (talk) 12:15, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
Thank you for your support! Regards, High Contrast (talk) 16:33, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

File:Oriflame Hand & Nail.JPG[edit]

{{File:Oriflame Hand & Nail.JPG}} Stefan4 (talk) 21:37, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Copyright status: File:Guds hand, Carl Milles, 1954, brons.JPG[edit]

{{File:Guds hand, Carl Milles, 1954, brons.JPG}} And also:

No required license templates were detected at this file page. Please correct it. If you have any questions please contact me on my talk page. Yours sincerely, Jarekt (talk) 15:44, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Copyright status: File:Relief av yrkesmän av Carl Fagerberg, granitrelief, Fristadstorget i Eskilstuna.jpg[edit]

{{File:Relief av yrkesmän av Carl Fagerberg, granitrelief, Fristadstorget i Eskilstuna.jpg}}

No required license templates were detected at this file page. Please correct it. If you have any questions please contact me on my talk page. Yours sincerely, Jarekt (talk) 16:09, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Copyright status: File:Rörelse av Per Hammarström, rondeller Eskilstuna.JPG[edit]

{{File:Rörelse av Per Hammarström, rondeller Eskilstuna.JPG}} And also:

No required license templates were detected at this file page. Please correct it. If you have any questions please contact me on my talk page. Yours sincerely, Jarekt (talk) 16:11, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

العربية | Català | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form) | Eesti | English | Español | Français | Galego | Magyar | Italiano | Nederlands | Polski | Română | Svenska | ไทย | Українська | +/−

Thank you for participating in Wiki Loves Monuments 2013! Please help with this survey.

Dear Hangsna,
Thank you for contributing to Wiki Loves Monuments 2013, and for sharing your pictures with the whole world! We would like to ask again a few minutes of your time.

Thanks to the participation of people like you, the contest gathered more than 365,000 pictures of cultural heritage objects from more than 50 countries around the world, becoming the largest photography competition to have ever taken place.

You can find all your pictures in your upload log, and are of course very welcome to keep uploading images and help develop Wikimedia Commons, even though you will not be able to win more prizes (just yet).

If you'd like to start editing relevant Wikipedia articles and share your knowledge with other people, please go to the Wikipedia Welcome page for more information, guidance, and help.

To make future contests even more successful than this year, we would like to invite you to share your experiences with us in a short survey. Please fill in this short survey in your own language, and help us learn what you liked and didn't like about Wiki Loves Monuments 2013.

Kind regards,
the Wiki Loves Monuments team

Wiki Loves Monuments logo

العربية | Català | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | English | Español | Eesti | Français | Magyar | Nederlands | Polski | Svenska | ไทย | +/−

Thank you for taking part in the Wiki Loves Monuments participants' survey!

Dear Hangsna,

Thank you for taking part in the Wiki Loves Monuments participants' survey. Your answers will help us improve the organization of future photo contests!

In case you haven't filled in the questionnaire yet, you can still do so during the next 7 days.

And by the way: the winning pictures of this year's international contest have been announced. Enjoy!

Kind regards,
the Wiki Loves Monuments team

Wiki Loves Monuments logo


You have tagged several images that I had made myself and uploaded to Wikimedia as copyright violations. I don't understand how this can be as it was I who made these photos. Did you perhaps mistakenly tag them as such where it actually should have been tagged as being against COM:PACKAGING? - Takeaway (talk) 20:32, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Well, I could be wrong but I was reasoning like this: If its against Commons:PACKAGING, then its copyrighted and thus can not be released under a free (commons) license. Therefore its a violation of the copyright to upload them. /Hangsna (talk) 15:06, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
Is there no way to photograph packaging of (food) products without running into this issue? - Takeaway (talk) 15:13, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
Well, it depends on the package. I think that Commons:PACKAGING explains it rather well together with what you can find. /Hangsna (talk) 19:44, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
COM:PACKAGING more or less forbids any images of commercial packaging. What is unequivocally allowed by it hardly applies to any packaging out there. What interests me is that I've noticed that certain images which show both wrapping and the content of the package, don't seem to be deleted as copyvios. Is it perhaps because the subject matter is the (non-copyright?) content, more than the copyrighted design of the packaging? - Takeaway (talk) 18:45, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
If something on a package is considered enough "work of art" or what you should call it, if it's "copyright-able" then it can't be released as free. The things kept should only be what does not meet threshold of originality, and thus can't be copyrighted. /Hangsna (talk) 12:05, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Wiki Loves Monuments är på gång igen![edit]

LUSITANA WLM 2011 d.svg

This is an invitation to participate in the Swedish part of the Wiki Loves Monuments competition. You are getting it since you participated in 2013. The message below is in Swedish, should this be an issue you can get more information in English here or drop a message on my talk page.

Hej Hangsna,
I september genomför vi fototävlingen Wiki Loves Monuments igen.

I år har vi till den svenska deltävlingen lagt till ytterligare en kategori med objekt du kan fotografera, nämligen arbetslivsmuseum. Vi har även passat på att förtydliga instruktionerna för hur man deltar. För mer information se tävlingens hemsida.

Det finns gott om fina priser och tio av bilderna går vidare till den internationella finalen. Så varför inte delta i år igen!

Vänliga hälsningar,
Arrangörerna av Wiki Loves Monuments i Sverige

Message delivered by L PBot (talk) 14:47, 27 August 2014 (UTC).

Deletion requests/File:Medve sajt 1.jpg[edit]

Hi, I wrote my opinion on the deletion page of my file, please read it! Thanks! --Fmvh (talk) 10:48, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Upphovsrätt eller bildrätt till foton av statyer[edit]

Hej! Ett foto av en staty eller byggnad är både skyddat som exemplar av det avbildade verket och som foto, bild eller verk. Om den som gjort en fotografisk bild föreställande ett ett konstverk eller en byggnad påstår sig vara "upphovsman" till det fotografiska "verket" utan att ange konstnärens eller arkitektens namn eller på annat sätt uppmärksamma att det enbart är fotot man hävdar rättigheter till så skulle det kunna uppfattas som att man utger sig för att vara skulptör eller arkitekt och därmed utgöra intrång i upphovsmannens rätt. De mallar som normalt används här på Commons när man laddar upp foton inbjuder till den formen av tveksamma claims. Kanske mallarna borde ändras så att det för svenska bilder framgår att det enbart är de närstående rättigheterna till fotobilden som avses och inte upphovsrätten till verket (the work)? Svensk och amerikansk rätt skiljer sig här. Edaen (talk) 10:29, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Hm, jag är inte helt klar över vad du menar. Menar du exempelvis här där jag anget "eget arbete" och borde anget konstnären där? Räcker det annars att skriva konstnärens namn i bildbeskrivningen/filnamnet för att man inte ska uppfatta att jag har någon upphovsrätt till verket? I så fall bör nog mallarna ändras, jag ser inte riktigt att jag kan göra andra val när jag laddar upp med de nuvarande mallarna. /Hangsna (talk) 10:47, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
Det gäller inte dig specifikt utan mallarna. Det var en tanke jag fick med anledning av en annan bildsidas angivande av fotografer som "upphovsmän" till verk utan angivande av arkitektens namn. Pga pågående tvist vill jag hålla funderingarna lite mer lågmälda och eftersom du visat intresse för upphovsrättsfrågor vände jag mig till dig.
Det är mallarna jag tänker på. Att de inbjuder till denna typ av möjligt intrång samt att de kanske borde formuleras mer så att de lockar till att ta fram metadata om avfotograferade föremål. Edaen (talk) 11:00, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
Aha, ja jag håller med dig, det blir inte helt tydligt. Jag som fotograf säger ju inte att jag vill ha upphovsrätt för verket och det är ju "min bild" jag släpper fri, inte själva konstverket. Det borde gå att förtydliga men jag vet inte riktigt hur. På Special:UploadWizard blir ju alternativen "Den här filen är skapad av mig." och "Denna fil är inte mitt eget verk." uppenbart val ett för mig. För filen är mitt eget "verk". Kanske är det möjligt att längre fram ange något som gör att om jag väljer att det är ett konstverk så kan det bli kanske ett delat fält för "Skapare".
Det är ju inte riktigt samma sak att jag anger filen vara mitt verk som att jag anger konstverket vara mitt verk, men med nuvarande upplägg/mallar så blir det ju precis så ett tillfälle att tolka det så. /Hangsna (talk) 11:09, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
Kanske default borde vara "detta fotografi" eller "denna bild" och "jag, fotografen" samt "bildrättigheterna" eller "rättigheterna" istället för "upphovsrätt" eller "copyright"? I de flesta fall handlar det om fotografier. I de färre fall då någon laddar upp en teckning eller ljudinspelning kanske man kan vara villig att leta upp en mer rättvisande licens längre ner på listan. Filer är väl inte uppenbart upphovsrättsskyddade utan faller mer naturligt under katalogskyddet. Edaen (talk) 11:46, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
Ett tredje alternativ "Jag har avbildat/återanvänt någon annans material" kanske kan vara naturligt annars? Då kan man hamna på någo sida där man får visa varför det är okej (som när jag väljer någon annans verk) och kanske även kan ange derivate work i de fall det är frågan om det. /Hangsna (talk) 20:14, 5 December 2014 (UTC)