User talk:JuTa/Archive 06

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to: navigation, search
Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

File tagging File:Geshekelsanggyatsoteaching.jpg

Беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | Català | Česky | Dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | Ελληνικά | English | Español | فارسی | Suomi | Français | Galego | עברית | Magyar | Հայերեն | Italiano | 日本語 | 한국어 | Lietuvių | Македонски | മലയാളം | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | Norsk bokmål | Polski | Português | Română | Русский | Slovenščina | Svenska | Türkçe | Українська | اردو | Tiếng Việt | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−
Warning sign
This media was probably deleted.
Thanks for uploading File:Geshekelsanggyatsoteaching.jpg. This media is missing permission information. A source is given, but there is no proof that the author or copyright holder agreed to license the file under the given license. Please provide a link to an appropriate webpage with license information, or send an email with copy of a written permission to OTRS (permissions-commons@wikimedia.org). This also applies if you are the author yourself.

Please see this page for more information on how to confirm permission, and Commons:Permission if you would like to understand why we ask for permission when uploading work that is not your own.

The file probably has been deleted. If you sent a permission, try to send it again after 14 days. Do not re-upload. When the OTRS-member processes your mail, the file can be undeleted. Additionally you can request undeletion here, providing a link to the File-page on Commons where it was uploaded ([[:File:Geshekelsanggyatsoteaching.jpg]]) and the above demanded information in your request.

Smooth_O (talk) 12:49, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

File:Verbund malta 1975.jpg

Commons-emblem-issue.svg File:Verbund malta 1975.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)‎ | +/−

High Contrast (talk) 22:23, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

File:Vimeo Logo.svg

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

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


Afrikaans | العربية | 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)‎ | +/−

TheChampionMan1234 (talk) 09:17, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

deleted image:LJB9_-_Chantrenne.jpg

Ich mal wieder... Kannst du bitte Licht in mein Unwissen bringen. Ich war der Meinung entsperechend gehandelt zu haben... :( 1970gemini 13:11, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Du hattest die doppelte Lizenz {{PD-old}} selbst wenige Minuten nach dem Upload entfernt. Allerdings war dort ein "Syntaxfehler" in der Bildbeschreibung so dass die Lizenz innerhalb der {{Information}}-Vorlage nicht mhr angezeigt wurde. Das hatte der Nikbot Dir dann mitgteilt. Und Du hattest den Fehler behoben, allerdings ohne die {{No license}}-Vorlage zu entfernen. Nach 7 Tagen kam User:Fastily und hat alle so gekennzeichnten Dateien von 26.8. gelöscht (Ein sehr fleissiger Admin, aber manchesmal zu schnell bzw. ohne die einzelnen Bilder dann auch nochmal anzusehen). Am besten sprichst Du ihn selbst an. In aller Regel stellt er solche Fehler schnell wieder her. Gruß --JuTa 22:50, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Fantasy flag

I refer to the deletion process which you closed and decided on a result contrary to the general debate and consensus minus one. Commons:Deletion requests/File:Flag of QueenMaud Land (unofficial).JPG. The file was included in one template on italian wiki and can therefor not be said to be extensively in use in spite of this template showing up on a number of italian antarctic pages. It is no longer in use in the template. I respectfully request you to reconsider per the deletion process policy. Inge (talk) 13:47, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Per this: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:D#Appeal I should contact you as the closing admin of the deletion process mentioned above. I respectfully request you to reconsider per the deletion process policy. I hope you could look at the case again and this time follow the considered opinion of those users who engaged in the debate. Keeping the image because it was used once in one wiki is not a good idea. The use on italian wiki was a good example of why this image should be deleted. It tricked the italian wiki into promoting the file as a factual real flag of Queen Maud Land. The longer you allow it to stay the more this will happen.Inge (talk) 21:00, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
Hmmm, it was in use I decided the case which made it "in scope" that time. Perhaps its better you open a new deletion request for it and another admin will decide... --JuTa 23:08, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
"To appeal debates of image not deleted, you might first want to discuss with the admin who closed the discussion." As per the Deletion policy I am supposed to ask you to reconcider in stead of opening a new debate. If you as the closing admin now feel in light of new information that the file should be deleted you are the one to do so. You will then be in line with the general concensus of those who participated in the deletion debate in stead of against them. The policy asks you to reconcider, but if you refuse to do so I will of course have to open a new debate. A more cumbersome process than the Policy dictates as I read it. Inge (talk) 15:25, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
But I dont feel now in light of new information that the file should be deleted. But maybe another admin will decide differently. --JuTa 19:33, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Scolaresca-a-verres.jpg

Please read this!--Patafisik (talk) 09:52, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

OK, I've read it. --JuTa 09:59, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

File:Windows 8 Desktop (de).png

Pay attention to copyright
File:Windows 8 Desktop (de).png has been marked as a possible copyright violation. Wikimedia Commons only accepts free content—that is, images and other media files that can be used by anyone, for any purpose. Traditional copyright law does not grant these freedoms, and unless noted otherwise, everything you find on the web is copyrighted and not permitted here. For details on what is acceptable, please read Commons:Licensing. You may find Commons:Copyright rules useful. You can ask questions about Commons policies in Commons:Help desk.

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

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


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

Fleet Command (talk) 19:32, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Cat changes such as Commons:Deletion requests/Leif Eriksson Memorial, Iceland‎

Could you please mark this kind of thing as minor edits -- they really fill up my watch list? Thanks.

Also, you might consider using AWB for this sort of thing -- much faster. AWB requires permission, which I would be happy to give you if you decide to try it. .     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:32, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Hi, I now changed my preferences to standard minor changes. Should be solved in future. About AWB: you might permit me if you like but I need to read and try more before I decide to use it or not. regards --JuTa 22:30, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for the change to "minor". As for AWB, why don't you take a look and decide first, then ask for permission. It will surely speed up much of your work, but it is a powerful tool and must be used with care. It is also not very well documented. .     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:52, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
Hi Jim, I now downloaded AWB and tried it. I don't need permission cause I'm Admin here. I may didn't understood all features of it, but in the way I just used it I don't feel it will help me very much. I.e. during I'm checking one page I like to follow links or view deleted versions to find i.e. a posible undeletion year, which is not easily possible with AWB as far I found out up to now. If I'm missing sth I would appreciate a hint :) regards --JuTa 19:39, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Category:Nudity and sexuality-related deletion requests/pending

Why? The system worked before, and also, you screwed up and lost the sortkeys which nicely sorted the category by last edit. -mattbuck (Talk) 11:04, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

When you look into the subcats of Category:Sorted deletion requests you find generaly a .../pending cat when there are .../kept or .../deleted ones. It was my intention to apply this system here as well. regards. If the sortkeys are nice is IMHO a question of taste. --JuTa 11:09, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
/Pending seems unnecessary though - if something's in the main cat, it is pending. The templates sort them that way. And the sortkeys were an intentional method to allow people to see what's new. -mattbuck (Talk) 12:21, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
Well, even I don't realy like this kind of sortkey I've readded them now. I dont like them because thy are based on {{REVISIONTIMESTAMP}}. So I cannot see when the DR is started nor when its (later on) decided. So my opinion is better just sort by pagename as the standard. PS: I'm current going through old DRs, mainly to find candidates for Category:Undeletion requests, but I try to fill the subcats of Category:Sorted deletion requests as well. When I would use that kind of sortkey for any subcat of Category:Sorted deletion requests for i.e. a DR from Nov. 2007 (where I currently working on), it would sort it under 2012 (or the result of the calculation of the sortkey), which I dont find very sensefull. regards --JuTa 20:36, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

File:Tase&Ich.jpg

Commons-emblem-issue.svg File:Tase&Ich.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)‎ | +/−

Amada44  talk to me 10:37, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

File:Und ewig singen die Wälder (filmposter).jpg

Hi, I wondered if you could take a look at this deletion request Commons:Deletion requests/File:Und ewig singen die Wälder (filmposter).jpg. I remember that you approved the transfer from the German language Wikipedia to Commons (http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Datei:Und_ewig_singen_die_W%C3%A4lder.jpg). I'm just not sure that I understand why it has been put up for deletion. Kind regards --Bygdeknøl (talk) 18:01, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Hi, I left a comment on the DR-page. If it gets deleted, give me a note. I will be able to restore it localy on de: Ceers --JuTa 18:53, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

File:Triglav-Denkmal.jpg

You've uploaded a derivative work We're sorry, but File:Triglav-Denkmal.jpg has been marked as a copyright violation. Wikimedia Commons only accepts free content, that is, images and other media files that can be used by anyone, for any purpose. Reproductions of copyrighted works are also subject to the same copyright, and therefore this file must unfortunately be considered non-free. For more information, please read Commons:Derivative works and Commons:Freedom of panorama. You can ask questions about Commons policies in Commons:Help desk.

The file you added will soon be deleted. If you believe this file is not a derivative of a non-free work, please explain why on the file description page. In case the file has already been deleted, you may contact the administrator who deleted it or make an undeletion request.


Беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | Čeština | Dansk | Deutsch | Ελληνικά | English | Español | Suomi | Français | Hrvatski | Magyar | Italiano | 日本語 | Македонски | Polski | Português | Português do Brasil | Русский | Slovenščina | Svenska | +/−

Eleassar (t/p) 11:49, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Notification about possible deletion

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

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


Afrikaans | العربية | 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:


Yours sincerely russavia (talk) 09:12, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

File:DioramaPiombino.jpg

I'm sorry, but there is no freedom of panorama in Italy. JuTa 09:34, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

It's not a panorama but a diorama !!!!!!!!!!!! --- Salutations. louis-garden pinXit (On en cause) 11:15, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
That doesn't matter. In Italy any fotos/pictures of artwork cannot be commercially used if the artist is not dead since minimum 70 years. "freedom of pamorama" is a term in copyright and differs widely from country to country. Pls. read Commons:Freedom of panorama. regards --JuTa 11:21, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
PS: Perhaps it:Libertà di panorama is more suitable for you. --JuTa 11:25, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

FOP-Bausteine

Hallo JuTa, mir ist die letzten Tage aufgefallen, dass du bei einigen meiner Uploads die bloße FOP-Kat. durch den FOP-Baustein ersetzt hast. Das deutet - in Anbetracht des aktuellen Oldenburg-Konflikts[1] - ja geradezu auf eine hellseherische Begabung deinerseits. Danke und bitte weitermachen. Alle eigentlich nur unter FOP legitimen Dateien sollten auch entsprechend markiert sein. --Túrelio (talk) 19:30, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Ja, da bin zur Zeit mit beschäftigt. Von dem Oldenburg-Case hab' ich allerdings erst heute was mitbekommen als ich einige Löschungen auf meiner Beo-Liste sah. Mein eigenliches Ziel erstmal die Einträge aus Category:FOP in die länderspzifischen Sub-Cats von Category:FOP by country umzu sortieren und wo sie noch fehlt entsprechende FoP-Vorlage zu setzen. Das waren mal ca. 12000 Stück und im Moment noch ca. 6500. Danach schlummern dann bestimmt noch mehrere 100000, wenn nicht Millionen Bilder, rum in denen man eigentlich eine FoP-Vorlage setzen könnte bzw. sollte. Ob und wie ich dann diese Masse angehen werde weiss ich noch nicht. Gruß --JuTa 20:19, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
Mir ist in diesem Zusammenhang allerdings aufgefallen, dass die Bausteine teilweise bei Bildern vergeben werden, die keinen solchen Baustein benötigen (weil die Skulptur oder das Gebäude jahrhundertealt und damit urheberrechtlich sowieso frei ist; Panoramafreiheit kommt da gar nicht erst zur Anwendung) - der FoP-Baustein sorgt da eher für unnötige Verunsicherung. Ausserdem müssten wir wohl zwischen Gebäude-FoP und Skulpturen-FoP unterscheiden, da letztere unter Umständen in den USA nicht anwendbar ist, auch wenn das Foto ausserhalb der USA aufgenommen wurde (siehe Oldenburg). Ich habe die Thematik gerade hier angesprochen, Diskussionsbeiträge und Vorschläge willkommen :-) Gestumblindi (talk) 21:49, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
Wollte das schon länger mal anmerken, jetzt wurde es aktuell: Wir brauchen für jedes Land ein FOP-Template, in dem erklärt was geht und was nicht. Da müssen eben mal die Urheberrechtsgesetze gelesen werden.--Antemister (talk) 21:56, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
(BK) Ich geh ja im Moment "nur" die Category:FOP durch. D.h. die Bilder waren vorher schon als FOP gekennzeichnet; per Vorlage oder nur per Kategorie. Wo eindeutig kein FOP-Gegenstand zu sehen ist, entferne ich das durchaus. Aber wenn Gebäude, Skulturen etc. zu sehen sind und aus der Beschreibung nicht klar hervorgeht wie alt sie sind, belass ichs lieber bei FOP und setzte halt den länderspzifischen Baustein. Da zu forschen wie alt die einzelnen Gegenstände sind fehlt mir bei der Masse an Bildern schlicht die Zeit. Die Oldenburg-Geschichte war wie gesagt nicht der Gund meiner Aktivitäten, sondern einfach etwas "Ordnungsbedürfnis". Schließlich sind die FOP Gesetze in den verschiedenen Ländern extrem unterschidlich, also versuch(t)e ich jeweils die Bilder mit den entsprechenden Bausteinen der einzelnen Länder zu versehen. Dabei habe ich anhand von COM:FOP auch einiges an neuen Bausteinen für Länder mit FoP erstellt. Gruß --JuTa 22:06, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
Im Zweifel sollte der Baustein aber drin bleiben. Er schadet ja nicht.--Antemister (talk) 22:25, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
Doch, er kann schaden: Bei einer ganz zweifelsfrei gemeinfreien Skulptur z.B. aus dem 16. Jahrhundert behauptet man mit dem Baustein ja "diese Skulptur ist noch urheberrechtlich geschützt und das Foto ist nur aufgrund der Panoramafreiheit möglich". Im Extremfall könnte ein so fälschlich als FoP-Fall markiertes Foto hier dann gar gelöscht werden, wenn mal wieder jemand US-amerikanisches Recht anwenden möchte. Du sagst allerdings "im Zweifel" und da stimme ich zu: Wenn wir bei einem Gebäude oder einer Skulptur nicht genau wissen, wie alt es/sie ist bzw. wann der Urheber verstorben ist (also alles, was mehr oder weniger nach 20. Jahrhundert aussieht und wozu wir keine näheren Angaben haben), kann man den Baustein natürlich im Zweifel drinlassen. Aber sobald wir es genauer wissen, sollte entsprechend gehandelt werden. Auch was die Spezifizierung (Gebäude/Skulptur, Bausteine auch für US-Recht) angeht. Gestumblindi (talk) 22:43, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
Ja, schon. Nur müssten wir uns hier entscheiden ob wir die Masse an potentiellen Bildern in halbwegs erreichbarer Zeit abarbeiten oder teils aufwändige Recherchen betreiben wollen. Nehmen wir an es würden (nur) noch Million potentielle FOP Fälle schlummern. Im Moment schaff ich ca. 100 Stück pro Stunde. Bei im Schnitt von ca. 2 Stunden täglich würde ich allein mit miner jetzigen Methode also ca. 5000 Tage oder 13 Jahre brauchen (utopisch). Würde ich individuell recherchieren wann das Gebäude / die Skulptur / ... gabaut oder erschaffen wurde oder wann der Künstler gestorben ist würd ich wahrscheinlich nicht mhr 100 sondrn nur noch 20 Stück pro Stunde oder so schaffen. Das wären nach mehr als 60 Jahre. Und neu hinzukommende Bilder sind hier gar noch nicht eingerechnet. --JuTa 23:00, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

File:LübA - Bismarck.jpg

Hallo,

ich habe eine Löschungsankündigung erhalten, verstehe sie aber nicht, da ich davon ausgehe, dass es sich um ein PD-old handele und dies mE Hieb- und Stichfest ist. Könntest du Dir das bitte einmal ansehen und mich wissen lassen was ich unterlassen habe einzufügen. MfG --1970gemini 13:03, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Da hatte der Nikbot in dieser Version angschlagen. Da war wohl in Syntax-Fehler in der Dateibeschreibbung, so dass gar keine Litzenz angezeigt wurde. Der ist aber inzwischen behoben. Alles ist gut :) --JuTa 12:07, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

File:CRM-Generationen.jpg

Commons-emblem-issue.svg File:CRM-Generationen.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)‎ | +/−

Arcudaki (talk) 10:40, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

File:Badener Salon 1895.JPG

Hi, Du hast das Bild vor einiger Zeit im Rahmen von no-licence Checks überprüft und die Lizenz als tauglich erachtet. Könntest du deine Entscheidung bitte noch mal überprüfen. IMO kann die Lizenz nicht stimmen, da sie für US-Werke gedacht ist und das Bild in Deutschland entstanden ist und wohl auch einen deutschen Autoren hat. Auf de.WP ist übrigens ein Duplikat (de:Datei:Badener Salon 1895, jährliche Kunstausstellung im Konversationshaus Baden-Baden.JPG), das etwas mehr Licht auf die Quellen werfen dürfte. Das Bild ist auf der englischen WP für mich nicht mehr einsehbar, aber ich schätze es wurde dorthin schlampig von der de.WP kopiert und von dort dann weiter auf Commons. -- Cecil (talk) 16:47, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Wenn ich mich mal einmischen darf: Diese Variante des Lizenzbausteins ist tatsächlich nur für US-Werke gedacht. Es ist allerdings richtig, wenn man auch einen Baustein setzt, der über den Status eines ausländischen Werks in den USA Auskunft gibt, das wäre in diesem Fall wohl eher {{PD-1923}} (wenn das Foto vor 1923 erstveröffentlicht wurde, wovon wir wohl ausgehen können). Wie in diesem Baustein aber zu lesen ist: "Wenn das Werk nicht aus den Vereinigten Staaten stammt, muss die Datei eine zusätzliche Lizenzvorlage zur Anzeige des Urheberrechtsstatus im Herkunftsland besitzen." Die korrekte Lösung wäre also, wenn der Urheber ermittelt werden kann und vor mehr als 70 Jahren verstorben ist, {{PD-old-auto-1923}} zu verwenden, mit dem Todesjahr des Urheber als Parameter 1, das ist eleganter als PD-1923 + (z.B.) PD-old-70. Das Problem ist aber immer noch, dass man gar nicht weiss, wer das Foto gemacht hat. Es könnte damit in Deutschland immer noch urheberrechtlich geschützt sein; der Fotograf kann ja durchaus vor weniger als 70 Jahren verstorben sein. Eine Möglichkeit wäre eventuell {{Anonymous-EU}}, aber dazu müsste man sich einigermassen sicher sein, dass das Bild ursprünglich ohne den Namen des Fotografen veröffentlicht wurde. Gestumblindi (talk) 17:47, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
Wie und wer auch immer. Wenn der Baustein nicht passt kann ich natürlich overruled werden. --JuTa 19:45, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
Ich denke, ich stelle dann eher einen Löschantrag, da 1895 bei (uns) unbekanntem Urheber und ohne hinreichende Sicherheit, dass das Foto ursprünglich anonym veröffentlicht wurde, nicht alt genug ist um davon ausgehen zu können, dass der Urheber vor mehr als 70 Jahren verstorben ist. Die Kopie in der deutschen Wikipedia kann aufgrund der dort geltenden pragmatischen 100-Jahre-Regelung wohl bleiben. Gestumblindi (talk) 18:43, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Notification about possible deletion

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

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


Afrikaans | العربية | 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:


Yours sincerely, Stefan4 (talk) 19:49, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Notification about possible deletion

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

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


Afrikaans | العربية | 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) 21:34, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Help: no-FoP Italy

Hi JuTa. When you have a moment, could you do me a favor. I decided to occupy my time to list the no-FoP files in Italy. It has been a long and difficult work that needs to be reviewed by administrators. Please, could you check if everything is correct on User:Raoli/Deletion requests/FoP Italy? Thanks! Raoli ✉ (talk) 00:43, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

File:Parkfriedhof Essen Opduktionsraum.jpg

Commons-emblem-issue.svg File:Parkfriedhof Essen Opduktionsraum.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)‎ | +/−

87.176.52.53 16:48, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

{{PD-because|freedom of panorama in Poland}}

FOP in Poland is fact. You made a terrible mess that I cleaned for hours. --Starscream (talk) 11:53, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Its true, Poland has Freedom of panorama, but you have to include a license for your own photos. Currently they don't have such a license. If you like to put your own work into public domain please replace the PD-because i.e. with {{PD-self}}. regards --JuTa 13:35, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

File:Staatstheater Kaskadenbrunnen0106a.jpg

Commons-emblem-issue.svg File:Staatstheater Kaskadenbrunnen0106a.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)‎ | +/−

Pedelecs (talk) 11:22, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

File:St. Galler Management-Modell.jpg

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

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

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


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

Rüeblibüebli (talk) 20:55, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Das hier

läuft ins Leere: 1. hat Gerardus das Bild nicht hochgeladen 2. ist er vor fast einem Jahr verstorben. Kannst Du bitte den Beitrag auf seiner DS rückgängig machen - mir fehlen die hierfür erforderlichen Admin-Rechte. Danke! Gruß, --4028mdk09 (talk) 20:28, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

✓ Done --JuTa 21:14, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

deletion request

Hi, excuse me. Could you remove, please, this requests? These files are in this list (as I wrote you above) and they are in discussion on it.wikipedia. I can also add a discussion in Commons:Administrators' noticeboard.

As soon as it cleared the Italian freedom of panorama by lawyers these files will be placed in a deletion request. Thank you. Raoli ✉ (talk) 16:40, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Hmm, I thought COM:FOP#Italy is clear, that there is no FOP in Italy. What needs to be cleared by lawyers? I don't speak italian, so I dont understand the it:-discussion. Pls. help me understaning your point. regards --JuTa 17:30, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
The discussion is bringing to light that 1) perhaps there is freedom of panorama 2) does not apply to all construction 3) there is no law or regulation that prohibits publish pictures of works of architecture 4) there is no judgment from 1941 to date that has punished someone who has violated this alleged lack of freedom of panorama 5) an Member of Parliament told that there is freedom of panorama 6) we are in doubt about copyright Italian because it's extremely vague 7) we are organizing a clearer formulation of Italy no-Fop (if it exists) for Commons 8) we are considering in what way raising public awareness about these issues. There are also other small issues and subtleties. :) Raoli ✉ (talk) 18:09, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
I now left a note about our discussion here at the DRs. I don't wanna decide my own deletion requests, so I leave the decision up to another admin. regards --JuTa 22:26, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
I do not know how long will the discussion. However, I suggest you to group them together in a single request as I did here :) Raoli ✉ (talk) 23:04, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

The Italian copyright law at WIPO (albeit in translation) is clear and straightforward. It covers:

"In particular the following shall be protected:
1) literary, dramatic, scientific, didactic and religious works, whether in written or oral form;
2) musical works and compositions, with or without words, dramaticomusical works, and musical variations which constitute original works;
3) choreographic works and pantomimes, the acting form of which is fixed in writing or otherwise;
4) works of sculpture, painting, drawing, engraving and similar graphic arts, including scenic art, even when such works are applied to an industrial product if their artistic value is distinct from the industrial character of the product with which they are associated;
5) architectural plans and works;
6) works of cinematographic art, whether in silent or sound form, provided they are not òere documentaries protected in accordance with the provisions of Chapter V of Part II.
7) works of photographic art and those expressed with processes analogous to photograph, provided that it is not a simple photograph protected according to the provisions of Chapter V of Part II.
8) computer programs,..." [emphasis added]

This is a somewhat more inclusive list than many.

At Article 12

"The author shall have the exclusive right to publish his work.
He shall, in addition, have the exclusive right to the economic utilization of the work in any form or manner, whether original or derivative, within the limits fixed by this Law, and especially as regards the exercise of the exclusive rights indicated in the following Articles."

This is a very comprehensive statement of author's exclusive rights, which would certainly include the ability to profit from photographs of his or her works.

There is nothing like a Freedom of Panorama clause -- the closest things to it are explicitly for private use. Please remember that Freedom Panorama is an exception to author's rights. If there is no Freedom of Panorama clause, then the author's right prevail, not the other way around.

There is nothing vague or doubtful about this -- it reads much like most copyright laws, except that the author's rights section is somewhat stronger than many.Therefore I see no reason to change our policy with respect to Italy. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 23:55, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Please, write this in english in it:Discussioni_aiuto:Copyright_immagini/Libertà_di_panorama#Conclusioni. Raoli ✉ (talk) 00:15, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

File:1982-01-Washington National Art Gallery-East Building028-ps.jpg

Dear JuTa,

if you would care to take the time to take a look at the permissions of this file you will read:
"This work is in the public domain in that it was published in the United States between 1923 and 1977 and without a copyright notice. Unless its author has been dead for several years, it is copyrighted in jurisdictions that do not apply the rule of the shorter term for US works, such as Canada (50 p.m.a.), Mainland China (50 p.m.a., not Hong Kong or Macao), Germany (70 p.m.a.), Mexico (100 p.m.a.), Switzerland (70 p.m.a.), and other countries with individual treaties. See this page for further explanation."
By adding the FOP/Germany-tag it is made clear, that it is also not covered by copright in Germany as the above mentioned clause might suggest, because in Germany (and Switzerland and other countries) FOP applies. So there is no reason to nominate this file for deletion.
Please take a little bit more time to read the edit-summeries AND the permissions licences of images before jumping to conclusions.--Wuselig (talk) 00:35, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
But for this the FOP template isn't made for. I.e. any parameter is ignored. Maybe we need a new template for this purpose but not that one. regards --JuTa 07:18, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

FOP

Hi, I think you've been inserting {{FOP-Argentina}} tag in photos taken in Uruguay, such as [2]. Could you check it? cheers, Banfield - Amenazas aquí 01:43, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

You are right. That happened because Category:2010 Punta del Este Grand Prix is a sub-sub-category of Category:Sports in Argentina. I've corrected it now. --JuTa 20:43, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Copyright status: File:Finnland 2 € Gedenkmünze 2006.jpg

български | català | čeština | dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | English | فارسی | suomi | français | magyar | italiano | македонски | മലയാളം | Bahasa Melayu | 日本語 | norsk bokmål | polski | português | română | slovenščina | svenska | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−

Warning sign
This media may be deleted.
Thanks for uploading File:Finnland 2 € Gedenkmünze 2006.jpg. I notice that the file page either doesn't contain enough information about the license or it contains contradictory information about the license, so the copyright status is unclear.

If you created this file yourself, then you must provide a valid copyright tag. For example, you can tag it with {{self|GFDL|cc-by-sa-all}} to release it under the multi-license GFDL plus Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike All-version license or you can tag it with {{PD-self}} to release it into the public domain. (See Commons:Copyright tags for the full list of license tags that you can use.)

If you did not create the file yourself or if it is a derivative of another work that is possibly subject to copyright protection, then you must specify where you found it (e.g. usually a link to the web page where you got it), you must provide proof that it has a license that is acceptable for Commons (e.g. usually a link to the terms of use for content from that page), and you must add an appropriate license tag. If you did not create the file yourself and the specific source and license information is not available on the web, you must obtain permission through the OTRS system and follow the procedure described there.

Note that any unsourced or improperly licensed files will be deleted one week after they have been marked as lacking proper information, as described in criteria for speedy deletion. If you have uploaded other files, please confirm that you have provided the proper information for those files, too. (You can get a list of all your uploaded files using the Gallery tool.) Thank you.

Ralgistalk 17:16, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Picture of the Year voting round 1 open

Dear Wikimedians,

Wikimedia Commons is happy to announce that the 2012 Picture of the Year competition is now open. We're interested in your opinion as to which images qualify to be the Picture of the Year for 2012. Voting is open to established Wikimedia users who meet the following criteria:

  1. Users must have an account, at any Wikimedia project, which was registered before Tue, 01 Jan 2013 00:00:00 +0000 [UTC].
  2. This user account must have more than 75 edits on any single Wikimedia project before Tue, 01 Jan 2013 00:00:00 +0000 [UTC]. Please check your account eligibility at the POTY 2012 Contest Eligibility tool.
  3. Users must vote with an account meeting the above requirements either on Commons or another SUL-related Wikimedia project (for other Wikimedia projects, the account must be attached to the user's Commons account through SUL).

Hundreds of images that have been rated Featured Pictures by the international Wikimedia Commons community in the past year are all entered in this competition. From professional animal and plant shots to breathtaking panoramas and skylines, restorations of historically relevant images, images portraying the world's best architecture, maps, emblems, diagrams created with the most modern technology, and impressive human portraits, Commons features pictures of all flavors.

For your convenience, we have sorted the images into topic categories. Two rounds of voting will be held: In the first round, you can vote for as many images as you like. The first round category winners and the top ten overall will then make it to the final. In the final round, when a limited number of images are left, you must decide on the one image that you want to become the Picture of the Year.

To see the candidate images just go to the POTY 2012 page on Wikimedia Commons

Wikimedia Commons celebrates our featured images of 2012 with this contest. Your votes decide the Picture of the Year, so remember to vote in the first round by January 30, 2013.

Thanks,
the Wikimedia Commons Picture of the Year committee


Delivered by Orbot1 (talk) at 09:38, 19 January 2013 (UTC) - you are receiving this message because you voted last year