User talk:Kam Solusar/Archive

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.


Kaltenbrunner Image Help

Alright, I need your help. Every time I upload a completely different image of Kaltenbrunner, it gets tagged for deletion by either yourself, Lupo, or Prince Kassad. I need an image of Kaltenbrunner in his military uniform for some of the other wikis...namely wikiquote. Can you please help me locate one that would not be an infringement? I seriously need one. The one I originally uploaded was tagged for being around 1943 by Frentz photographs. The second was 1943 USHMM. Please help me locate a similar image that would not be under violation. I need an image of him in uniform. Zarbon (talk) 13:53, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Among those that were deleted:

Some that I never uploaded...let me know if any of these would pass:

Well, let me know if any of the three I haven't uploaded yet would pass...and if you can come across any otherwise that I haven't pointed out, let me know that too. Many thanks. Zarbon (talk) 03:52, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

I haven't found the authors of those three images. So, unless the author can be identified and he or his heirs give permission to use it, these photos unfortunately can't be used on Commons. --Kam Solusar (talk) 13:23, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
Wait a second, isn't it the other way around? If the authors are unknown, isn't it safe to say unknown/anonymous and leave it at that...? Since the authors can't be identified, then the images are not copyrighted. Many of the images during that era were photographed by anonymous people who did not copyright the material. Many of the material was seized by governments and further copyright notice was not given, therefore nullifying the ownership and furthermore disqualifying the chance of 70 years pma. Otherwise, the images themselves seem to be, based on insignia, from some time around 1935-1940. In any case, they aren't copyrighted. I really need one image of him in uniform, please help me out here. Zarbon (talk) 01:21, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
Unfortunately, the fact that we don't know the author doesn't mean that he was anonymous (=never revealed his identity to the public). We would need a reliable source that says that the author was anonymous, or provide some conclusive evidence that nobody ever knew his name by searching in (offline) image collections, historical databases, books, etc. And even if the author was anonymous, in that case the image would still be copyrighted for 70 years after its publication - and for those three photos, we don't even know the original source and what year they were published. Some of them may have been seized by the US, but that only changes its copyright status in the US, not in Germany (and Commons requires images to be PD in both the US and the country of origin).
In some cases, there unfortunately aren't any free images of certain subjects that we can use due to copyrights and Wikimedia licensing policy. --Kam Solusar (talk) 18:07, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
But through intense searching for the actual authors, whom are obviously deceased, there is absolutely no sign of who they are. However, whereas some images have the very blatant "cannot be used because of 70 years" rule...there are also some that because we don't have any information on, are grounded purely on our choice. We know that commons is for entirely free images. Yes, that much has been made clear. However, to have no information doesn't yet mean that the information is substantial enough to call for deletion. See what I mean? Some images we can't use because we know for a fact that their copyright status must be both in US and Germany, but there are also some that there is absolutely no information given. This allows for a more lenient approach. Until proven unusable, there's absolutely no reason to assume that every single image of the specific subject is definitely unusable. Zarbon (talk) 13:31, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
I think the rules on Commons in this regard are pretty strict: If there's no solid proof that the image is in the public domain (or released under a free license), it can't be used here. --Kam Solusar (talk) 15:54, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

About this: Image:Joao cruz sporting.jpg

Hi, have right...I forgot to put that...the autor of the image is Sporting...and the picture is from Sporting (a soccer club)...then the rights of the picture belong to the club...if that the autor is Sporting...and the club lose the autor rihts after 70 years, that is the maximum time here in Portugal for an entitie have exclusive rights of anything, its like the autor as died...;)....


Geosapiens (talk) 17:38, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

P.S.- Can you eliminate the tag? Its already modified the field of the autor...and sorry...;-)...

Hitler images

Funny how you as German want to remove images of Hitler by putting deletion requests. Accept your history, it happened right here, you murdered 6 million Jews and democraticly elected Hitler. Stop trying to hide it. -- 15:21, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

I really couldn't care less about that asshole. I don't start these deletion requests because of the content of the photos, this is strictly about the authors copyrights. During my work on the German Wikipedia I learned quite a bit about copyrights (German copyright laws, US laws, international treaties and how they interact with each other), so of course my work here on Commons focuses on German photos. If I knew enough about copyrights of another country, I'd start deletion requests for copyvios from that country. Unfortunately, most German images from the WW2 era are still copyrighted due to German copyright laws (see en:Wikipedia:Public_domain#German_World_War_II_images), but some can be considered to be in the public domain in the US. But as Commons policy demands that every image has to be free in the US and it's country of origin, alot of those images are not allowed on the Commons project. I don't think we should ignore those laws/rules just because some infamous fuckwad is on the photo.
As many users from other projects like the English Wikipedia don't know enough about this Commons policy and about German copyright laws, lots of images from that era (including photos of Nazi officials and, of course, Hitler) are uploaded constantly, but have to be considered copyright violations. I absolutely don't want to hide that part of history (why would I?), if you or someone else can find works from that era that are free of copyright I don't have any problems with that. --Kam Solusar (talk) 17:13, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
Hello Kam, question : why did Germans throw themselves into Hitler's arms? (Part of) the answer : the British had imposed very harsh conditions on Germany in the Versailles Treaty. Of course, this is no excuse, but it is so easy to only look at effects without looking for the causes... :-) Djoehana (talk) 17:37, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
Yes, although I think I will never truly understand how and why people would let all those things happen the way they did back then... --Kam Solusar (talk) 00:10, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Image Tagging Image:Bujang valley.jpg

I see you have sent the same message to Imhadi. Let's see what he will answer... Best regards, Djoehana (talk) 17:37, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Doesn't look good so far. Imhadi only made a few edits in October 2005, so the chances that he will add some source information are probably not the best. --Kam Solusar (talk) 00:10, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Just so you know....

this closing comment wasn't meant to be a cheap shot at you. :) Keep up the good work, friend. (And now I think about it, with you being from Germany, uploading it could have put you in legal trouble anyway, so it was for the best.) Lewis Collard! (lol, internet) 20:27, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

No problem, and thanks :o) I hadn't even really thought about the risk of getting into legal trouble for uploading it. That might be an interesting discussion for the German village pump. --Kam Solusar (talk) 00:05, 29 July 2008 (UTC)


It had a permission tag (non properly a tag, it was specified in the title). However, I don't know how to contact the author. I think the simplest way is image deletion. --Nyo (talk) 07:32, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Seems like it's already deleted. The problem is, that now that the image is not available on photobucket anymore, there's no way of verifiying its copyright status. --Kam Solusar (talk) 16:27, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Images Paul Scheffer

Hi, könnt Ihr mir bitte mal auf deutsch klar machen, was an den Bildern des Malers Paul Scheffer falsch ist? und warum das eine Bild (die Fotografie des Malers) schon gelöscht wurde? Die eingestellten Bilder habe ich alle selbst abfotografiert und habe dabei auch keine Museumsrechte oder ähnliches verletzt. Tut mir leid, aber mit den englischen Fachausdrücken habe ich meine Probleme. Vielen Dank schon mal Reffesch

Hi Reffesch, bei dem Bild Image:Paul-Scheffer-Maler.jpg ist nicht klar, warum genau es gemeinfrei (Public domain) sein sollte. Gemeinfrei werden Fotos erst 70 Jahre nach dem Tod des Urhebers, vorher können sie nur nach Freigabe durch die Erben genutzt werden. Die Angaben bei dem Bild reichen leider nicht aus, um den Autoren zu identifizieren und die Gemeinfreiheit des Bildes zu bestätigen. --Kam Solusar (talk) 18:38, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
Danke, hoffe, daß ich es jetzt richtig gemacht habe - würdet Ihr mir das bitte bestätigen oder Hilfe-Tipp geben? Gruß Reffesch
Ich befürchte, die Angaben reichen so nicht ganz aus. Aus der Beschreibung wird nicht klar, wer "Esser" ist (der Fotograf, oder du selbst?). Wie gesagt, der Fotograf muß entweder mindestens 70 Jahre tot sein (in dem Fall den vollen Namen und sein Todesjahr nachtragen), oder die Erben (bzw. der aktuelle Rechteinhaber) müssen das Bild freigeben (Eine Vorlage zum Ausfüllen gibt es →hier auf deutsch). --Kam Solusar (talk) 14:38, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Massive vandalism or blatant ignorance?

I noticed that you vandalised several hundred images, mostly of soviet origin. I advise you to IMMEDIATELY STOP AND DESIST any further such activities. This is strictly prohibited by wikimedia rules. You germans perheps think, that you, in your endless wisdom can impose your strict germanic ideas of how copyright law should work on ukranian readers but it is really not a case! You have to understand that images of soviet origin are NOT russian even if you bloody people always thought they were. They are not lituanian or tartar. They belong to ALL soviet people and therefore were equally distributed throughout the Soviet Union. They were published and presented to public evenly, being made avilable to ALL the publications and newspapers without regard for borders, which only existed on paper for all intents and purposes. Therefore it is up to you and not the to the people of ukraine to prove that they were somehow NOT published in Kiev but only in Norilsk. Since you have not presented any indication that you are in any way willing to provide any such evidence, than your attempts to put depreciated lisence tags (namely PD-Russian) on soviet works will be considered pure vandalism and will be immediately undone. In the future i suggest you consult with experts in Soviet related copyright before attempting to violate rights of wholle groups of other users. Bear in mind that ukranians have suffered plenty enough from you all and you should be mindfull of that. Shtanga (talk) 07:53, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

I reverted your edits because it looked like you (and others) just changed the licensing tags on many soviet images from {{PD-Russia}} to {{PD-Ukraine}} as an easy way to keep all the images after russian copyright laws had changed. And I don't think that all images from all former soviet countries can be considered Ukrainian. They might be free in the Ukraine as works from former soviet countries (I don't know much about ukrainian copyright law), but I doubt that this makes those images Public Domain in their respective countries of origin. And Commons policy requires all images to be public domain in the US and in their country of origin, see Commons:Licensing. So a photo taken in Russia by a russian photographer might be PD in the Ukraine, but not necessarily in Russia (especially after the recent changes in russian copyright law). Most of the images you edited had no indication whatsoever that they were made in the Ukraine, taken by a ukrainian photographer or published in the Ukraine. All images need sufficient information to verify their copyright status, and it's up to the uploader (or the people that want to keep/use the image) to provide sufficient proof. Commons:Licensing#Russia and former Soviet Union and Commons:Copyright tags#Russia and former Soviet Union IMHO indicate, that you can't tag random soviet images as {{PD-Ukraine}}. If you don't agree, you could ask over at Commons talk:Licensing for clarification of this issue. --Kam Solusar (talk) 16:46, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
I just asked about PD-Ukraine on Commons talk:Licensing#PD-Ukraine and works from other former soviet countries to get some clarification on this issue. --Kam Solusar (talk) 17:21, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
Right. Ones again you regurgitate the same old fallacies about "russian" photographer" taking pictures in "Russia" as a cornerstone of your argument. Maybe in the days of the tsar Ivan the Terrible Russia and Russians were one and the same but any more. In the Soviet Union the entire leadership was made up of national minorities. So were the intelligencia. Please understand that ukranians are everywhere in Russia and russians are everywhere in ukraine just like Irish in UK. Or germans in Austria. There is NO basis at ALL to claim that Russian federation is the only country of origin for the soviet works. Espessialy if image is the WWll vintage. In fact Ukranian Government considers the entire Soviet copiright fund to be Ukranian and unless there exists the agreement beetween these two countries somehow limiting use of soviet made material to Ukranian people than Ukraine have same right to be considered the "country of origin" as the Russian federation. Also its irrelevant where and who "made" the image. Rather were it was made available to the public. Since, like i already said in the Soviet Union All major publications were using the same material, than you guess that it "more likely" was made available to public here, rather then there, is pure guesswork and therefore worthless. And one more thing. There dont have to be just one and only lisense on the given image. It can have several. Lots of ukranians put PD-Ukraine tags on PD-old images becouse it will have in a guy with long mustache playing bandura. Thats all well and good but its not the criteria here.

Shtanga (talk) 20:21, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

I think it's best to wait for some other opinions over at Commons talk:Licensing, to see if there's a consensus about such images here on Commons. --Kam Solusar (talk) 23:00, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

File:Polish Legions II Brigade WWI in Volhynia.jpg

I seem to run into a database error there. Can you remove the overcat machine gunes? Thanks, --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 17:59, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Hmm.. maybe some software bug? Worked for me without problems it seems. Weird. --Kam Solusar (talk) 18:21, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Licenses on pics

Hi Kam, I agree with you that the licenses on;

  • File:Pegaso-6x6_jpeg.jpg
  • File:DAF_YA_414_2.jpg
  • File:DAF_YA_414_1.jpg

are dubious. I contacted the publisher by e mail for permission and as soon as i recieve the permission (or not) i will add that permission to the pics.

The files File:DAF_YA-318_proto_side.jpg & File:DAF YA-318 proto front.jpg, however, are made in 1951 by my father. I have the originals. They appeared also in the book i mentioned by the description i added. Only in the wrong place apperantly. Ich hab das corrigiert und hoffe das es so richtig ist. MfG Macfip (talk)

Hi Macfip. It's possible that the first three will be deleted, but if you get the permission, they can be restored via Commons:Undeletion requests (I don't know if a template exists that you can put onto such images to show that a email asking for permission was sent).
The other images, taken by your father, are fine of course (provided that you are the heir). But you should mention on the image description page that your father was the author and that you, as his heir, release them under those licenses. --Kam Solusar (talk) 03:05, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Mehmet Akif Ersoy.jpg

Hi, I think this file was deleted from Turkish Wikipedia due to a copyright violation. Since I transferred the file from there, the same must be done here in Commons as well. --Chapultepec (talk) 23:53, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

I think I have solved the problem, but you had better re-check the file just in case. Thank you. --Chapultepec (talk) 00:36, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
Hi Chapultepec. I don't know much about turkish copyright law, but it seems photos are copyrighted until 70 years after the death of the photographer. So I think we need some info about the photographer and about the source where the photo was first published. The other possibility mentioned in the {{PD-TR}} template ("because it has been expropriated as national heritage") needs some evidence too, to verify that the image was expropriated. --Kam Solusar (talk) 03:16, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
Yes, you're right, and I have searched the internet for a clue of its photographer and date for a couple of hours, but couldn't find anything. I think the best thing to do is to upload it as a fair use image in English WP having been deleted here in Commons. So, the picture is yours. :) --Chapultepec (talk) 16:35, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
I'll open a deletion request. Those discussions usually take a bit longer, so there's a chance that someone discovers some information about the author or original source. --Kam Solusar (talk) 15:38, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

thanks but {{nothanks}}

Um--- little late on the notification don't 'cha think?

Date the email notice was sent: "2/15/2009 11:41 PM"

Post on talk page: "Unless the permission information is given, the image may be speedy deleted after seven days. Thank you.

Kam Solusar (talk) 02:19, 2 January 2009 (UTC)"

Also: "There will be no other notifications in case of further changes unless you visit this page"

Thanks but {{nothanks}} back at you. 15:25, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

— Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk • contribs) Kam Solusar (talk) 17:00, 16 February 2009 (UTC) (UTC)

Sorry, but I have no idea what you're talking about. Which image and talk page are you referring to? Seems I marked an image that didn't have a proof that a permission to use it existed, and postetd the according warning on a (your?) talk page. If you did send the permission to the OTRS-email, the image will be restored once the permission is confirmed by the support team. --Kam Solusar (talk) 17:00, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Closed reqeust


Please don't edit closed reqeust, If you do so the bot will not archive it :( If you don't agree with the decision of the administrator you could talk to him on his talk page, or ask a non involved admin.

Best regards, Abigor talk 19:15, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

I thought the bot archived all closed requests 24h after the last timestamp? In this case, my comment just delayed the archive bot for ~3 hours. I only wanted to explain why I requested the undeletion and didn't just add the information to the other file. Starting a new discussion somewhere else just for this comment seemed unnecessary to me. --Kam Solusar (talk) 19:52, 16 February 2009 (UTC)


Hi Eva,

sorry dass ich deine Beobachtungsliste so zugespammt hab, aber ich hab vorhin die meisten deiner Lizenzänderungen der letzten Zeit rückgängig gemacht. Man kann nicht einfach Lizenzen wie die GFDL zurücknehmen oder einschränken. D. h. sie sollten nicht einfach von der Bildbeschreibungsseite gelöscht werden und es ist gängige Praxis hier auf Commons, solche Änderungen rückgängig zu machen. Wurde IMHO auch im Laufe der GFDL1.2-Diskussion öfters erwähnt, daß GFDL nicht einfach durch GFDL1.2 ersetzt werden kann. Gruß, --Kam Solusar (talk) 03:22, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Es hat keine Lizenzrücknahmen gegeben, da ich nur GFDL auf den Wert festgelegt habe, der darin geschrieben ist, aber nicht zurückhenommen. An der Lizenzierung mit CC hat sich nichts geändert. Was soll also die erstens Überwachung und zweitens Eigenmächtigkeit deinerseits. Ich empfinde das als unverschämten Eingriff in meine Rechte als Urheberin. Mach erstmal selbst Bilder und stell sie hier ein, statt nur den Wächter zu spielen. --Eva K. is evil 10:37, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
Ich ergänze das noch mal um was: Ich habe eine Aversion gegen Leute, die erstens nicht mit ihrem Namen zu ihren Aktivitäten stehen und die zweitens nicht produktiv im Sinne von Artikeln oder Mediendateien beitragen. Ich habe eine Aversion gegen Leute, die statt dessen in Verwaltungsarbeit aufgehen, die produktiven Leute behindern und letztlich wegekeln. Solche Leute, die den Sinn der Wikimedia-Projekte durch den Aufbau einer riesigen Verwaltungs- und Kontrollbürokratie in ihr Gegenteil verkehren, halte ich für projektschädigender als es eine relativ unbedeutende Lizenzanpassung meinerseits je sein kann. --Eva K. is evil 17:07, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
Du hast bei Dateien, die du sowohl unter der generischen GFDL (ohne Version) als auch über deinen eigenen Lizenzbaustein unter GFDL1.2 freigegeben hattest, den GFDL-Lizenzbaustein entfernt. Das ist nunmal eine nicht zulässige Einschränkung, bzw. Rücknahme, da du die Dateien eben nicht nur unter GFDL1.2 Version freigegeben hattest. Dateien um weitere Lizenzen wie die GFDL1.2only ergänzen ist erlaubt, andersrum aber nicht. Vor allem bei Dateien, die schon vor Jahren hochgeladen wurden und evtl. schon woanders unter dieser Lizenz weiterverwendet werden. --Kam Solusar (talk) 21:07, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
Da es ja wohl geplant ist, im Rahmen der GFDL 1.2+ folgend 1.3 folgend CC-BY-SA einzusetzen, sehe ich den sowieso schon unter CC-BY-SA xx lizenzioerten Bildern kein Problem. Bleibt es hingegen bei 1.2, sehe ich in der Einschränkung auch kein weiteres Problem, zumal der Weiternutzer ja die Möglichkeit hat, auf CC auszuweichen. Wozu also das ganze Theater? Doch nur, um's einer eigenwilligen Benutzerin mal so richtig zu zeigen, wer die Macht hat. Liefere Bilder und kümmere dich dann mal darum, daß die Weiternutzer wenigstens die geringen immateriellen Bedingungen der Lizenzen einhalten, dann gestehe ich dir auch ein Recht zum Mitreden zu. derzeit sehe ich dich nur als hier unproduktiv an, s.o. --Eva K. is evil 23:10, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
Hallo Eva, sorry dass die Antwort etwas länger gedauert hat, ich hatte die letzten zwei Tage nur wenig (online-)Zeit. Ich bin die die Sache wohl etwas unfreundlich angegangen - hätte jemand viele meiner Edits rückgängig gemacht wäre ich wahrscheinlich auch nicht gerade bester Laune. Wäre wohl besser gewesen, dich vorher anzusprechen.
Mir ging es hier keineswegs darum, dir persönlich eine reinzuwürgen. Ich hatte nur zufällig noch ein paar deiner Bilder auf meiner Beobachtungsliste und deshalb die Lizenzänderungen bemerkt. Wäre es ein anderer User gewesen, hätte ich die Änderungen genauso revertiert. Ich hatte auch vorher im Forum nachgefragt, und erst nach entsprechenden Stimmen dort die Änderungen rückgängig gemacht.
Bei einem Medien-Projekt wie Commons, das sich um freie Lizenzen und Inhalte dreht, wird eben entsprechend stark auf die Lizenzen geachtet (wenn auch die Manpower hier leider nicht groß genug ist, um alle entsprechenden Edits wirklich prüfen zu können). Und ein Wechsel von GFDL auf die GFDL1.2only ist eben nicht möglich, auch wenn sich da im Moment nicht viel zwischen der normalen GFDL (1.3) und 1.2 geändert haben mag. Wenn jemand anders daherkommen und bei ein paar deiner Bilder beliebig die Lizenzen ein bißchen ändern würde, wärst du wohl auch auch nicht gerade glücklich. Durch das Hochladen hast du deine Bilder dem gesamten Projekt und auch jedem beliebigen Nachnutzer unter der angegebenen Lizenz zur Verfügung gestellt. Und deshalb ist es im Interesse des Projektes und auch Dritter, dass diese Lizenzen bewahrt und nicht im Nachhinein eingeschränkt/verschärft werden.
Und ja, ich hab noch keine Bilder hier hochgeladen. Hab eben kein Händchen für die Fotografie. Das heißt IMO aber nicht, dass ich hier nicht meine Meinung über das Projekt und die Freiheit seiner Inhalte haben und bei der Gestaltung und Umsetzung der Projektrichtlinien mitarbeiten darf. Das geht aber IMO auch am Kern der Diskussion vorbei. --Kam Solusar (talk) 04:01, 27 February 2009 (UTC)


I am somewhat confused by the request for permission on this image. The program was printed for an event by a now-defunct enterprise. Is it the photograph of the player on the cover that is the issue? I took the picture of the program on display at an exhibit. Should I remove the cropping, so that it is clear that is a photograph of an artifact? Alexander Laney (talk) 15:51, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

The problem is, that the photograph of the player is most likely still copyrighted, so your photo constitutes a derivative work. So we can't use it on Commmons/Wikipedia, unless there's some evidence that the photo of the player is in the public domain or we get a permission by the copyright holder. --Kam Solusar (talk) 16:35, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
I believe you are being copyright-paranoid in this case. I don't have the time or inclination to argue your interpretation. I will post it to Wikipedia under fair-use instead. Alexander Laney (talk) 21:02, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
This has nothing to do with "paranoia". Photos are subject to copyright. By taking a photo of someone else's work (like this program) you don't get the copyrights for that work. So if we don't have any evidence that the photo is either in the public domain (which in this case seems unlikely, see Commons:Licensing#Canada) or used with permission of the copyright holder, we can't use it on Commons. And by the way, I doubt that the fair use image in en:Ottawa Nationals will be allowed to stay, as it doesn't meet Wikipedia's fair use criteria. --Kam Solusar (talk) 18:57, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

My file

Sorry for my bad english. The file that you marked without licence is a copyvio... at the begining, I did not have experience and I had many problems with licences. How may I mark to delete that file as a copyvio???. --User:Netito777 16:00, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Hi Netito777, I think the easiest way to delete the image is to put either {{speedydelete|Reason}} onto the image description page, or the copyvio template, {{copyvio|source or reason}}. --Kam Solusar (talk) 22:55, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
Thanks. --User:Netito777 15:51, 26 March 2009 (UTC)


I received your message. The information of the file indicates that it is my own work and that it has been released to public use. It was not published and I own the original. This information is presented in the explanation of the file. I would be grateful if you could indicate what additional information you want to be added. 15:49, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying the information on the image description page. Unfortunately many people upload old images and claim to be the author just because they scanned them in. Especially black/white photos from the 50s and older are too often copyright violations and need to be deleted. So it's (in my opinion) necessary to ask the uploaders to clarify whether they really took the photos themselves 50 years ago or received the copyrights in some other way. Sorry for the inconvenience. --Kam Solusar (talk) 21:56, 1 April 2009 (UTC)


Hi, sorry i was not informed that this picture's author was still alive. You can delete it as a speedy deletion. Thanks, --prosopee (talk) 20:18, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

No problem. It's already deleted by Infrogmation. --Kam Solusar (talk) 21:58, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

File:Gaston Bachelard.jpg

Hi again, i am sorry , for this picture i did not receive the author's autorization; please delete it, i am going to upload a new one, with source and autorization. Thanks, --prosopee (talk) 20:34, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

I can't delete it myself (I'm no admin), but it will be deleted in a few days. If you want to have it deleted sooner, you could request a speedy deletion by adding {{speedydelete|Reason}} on the image description page. --Kam Solusar (talk) 22:02, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Prima Porta photos

I added source and permission to the Prima Porta images you tagged. They were found in a recent free calendar printed and distributed by Prima Porta's local council. On the calendar there was no copyright indication. Anyway, the photos show sites that are very old, and no more existing from decades, so it is very plausible that the photos are more than 70 years old. Being published in a free calendar, with the scope of publicizing Prima Porta's history, make them also good candidates for fair use, just in the case they were actually not so old. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Delbene (talk • contribs) Kam Solusar (talk) 01:52, 4 April 2009 (UTC) (UTC)

Unfortunately, it's not that easy. That the calendar was free and didn't include any copyright information doesn't have any effect on the author's copyrights. The author either needs to be dead for more than 70 years, or there must be some evidence that he remained anonymous (see {{Anonymous-EU}}). But to verify the copyright status, we need information about the author and/or where and when it was first published. We can't just assume that these photos are in the public just because they are old. You can of course upload them to the English Wikipedia as fair use images, which isn't allowed on Commons. --Kam Solusar (talk) 01:52, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
Actually I think this could be indeed the case. They are generic photos, not artistic, and probably their authors are long forgotten. I'll try to send an email requesting info to Prima Porta's local council. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Delbene (talk • contribs) Kam Solusar (talk) 16:00, 9 April 2009 (UTC) (UTC)
That would be great. Hopefully they have some information about the photos. If they don't know the authors, that would IMHO be enough to use them as {{Anonymous-EU}}. In that case, the reply should also be forwarded to the OTRS team. --Kam Solusar (talk) 16:00, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
Email sent (17/04/2009 20.04). Waiting for a reply.
I didn't get any reply, as of today 27/05/2009. --Delbene

File:Thomas George Shaugnessy.png

Sorry for my english, you indicated probl. with this photo (from 1910), why? I don't understand. Thanks--Ancien et moderne (talk) 16:42, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

I added the "no permission" tag because there's no explanation about who released it under the GNU Free Document License. But it seems it was taken/published in Canada? I don't know much about Canadian copyrights, but according to Commons:Licensing#Canada the photo is probably in the public domain (if it was taken in Canada), so it could be tagged with {{PD-Canada}}. The GFDL template should only be used when the author explicitly released the image under this license. --Kam Solusar (talk) 02:13, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
I changed the image description accordingly, should be OK now. --Kam Solusar (talk) 15:53, 9 April 2009 (UTC)


I have very little time to engage in long discussions, this photo (Andrés_Avelino_Cáceres.jpg) was taken more than 100 years ago. Please can you tagged accordingly? thank you for your assistance in this matter. JohnManuel (talk) 02:33, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Even old photos that are in the public domain need a reliable source, so the copyright status and authenticity can be verified. I added a source that looks reliable to me (although I don't speak Spanish). --Kam Solusar (talk) 16:12, 9 April 2009 (UTC)


Help Santiago Vergara Cañadas.jpg. In this case, the autor is anonimus and I do not know about his death. But I supose to use free for Cruz Roja to altruims promotions. In Spain its use seems free (Colegio Oficial de Enfermería de Almería, in publish,...) I think in Spain is posible uses for altruims. I'm doubt. Talk me, thanks. And sorry for my english.--ANE (talk) 12:22, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Hi ANE, the problem is that we can't find out the copyright status of the photo without a good source. We need at least some information about where the photo was published (books, etc.). Maybe you could write an email to the website where you found the photo? (I tried to find the photo on the website of the Colegio Oficial de Enfermería de Almería, but couldn't find it). Or you could ask on Commons:Café, maybe some Spanish speaking users can help finding a good source. --Kam Solusar (talk) 03:00, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Gianadda free pictures

As indicated since the upload (in the § Description) : This image came from a file of pictures free of right (also indicated from this page of the official site). -- Louis-garden (talk) 07:44, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Hi Louis, the page is named "presse.php" and it says "Photos libres de droit", which Google translated as "royalty free". Seemed to me like a typical press license, with no mention of derivative works or free commercial use. But maybe this translation of "libre de droit" was wrong? --Kam Solusar (talk) 02:35, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

File:Jacques Barrot.jpg

Hi Kam, What is your issue with this file? You tagged it as no source, but the source and author are given. I happen to know the original enwiki uploader, so I could get more details if I knew what you think is missing. Cheers, Pruneautalk 08:08, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Hi Pruneau. There are several facts that made me question if Pingoin really was the author of this image. The upload text on the English WP didn't contain any author or source information (e.g. "own work", "taken by myself") or a self license template like GFDL-self, so it's not clear where it came from. Combined with the facts that Pingoin only had three edits (2 in the sandbox and one edit to add the image to an article) and that Google image search also found the image on another site, it looked unclear enough for me to add the no-source template. All too often, images in such cases turn out to be copyvios, so I'm always a bit suspicious. But if you know him, maybe you could ask him to write an email to the OTRS team to verify that the image was taken by him and released under these licenses? --Kam Solusar (talk) 02:58, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
Hi Kam. Thanks for the reply. I'll get Pingoin to upload the uncropped photo with metadata. That should be enough to proove she is the copyright owner. Thanks for letting me know about the website wihc is reuing the photo in disregard of the licence; I'll drop them a line when the site goes back online. Cheers, Pruneautalk 11:51, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
That would be great. Thank you. --Kam Solusar (talk) 05:40, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Boub foot


  • BindFootWoman.jpg
  • BindFoot2.jpg
  • BindFoot.jpg

I don't know what to do: I've scanned them from some books where nothing is written about copyrights. If I've uploaded them in wiki is because the photo was shotted more then 100 years ago, so I believed it was not a problem -- 10:53, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

The problem is, that there is no information about the source on the image description pages, so we can't verify that the photos are public domain. Please add at least the name and author of the book to the image description pages. Is there any other information about these photos in the books, the date they were taken or the author's name? The copyright status also depends on the place where it was taken (China?) and the place where it was first published. In China for example, images are copyrighted until 50 years after the author's death, so we have to know if he died before 1959. --Kam Solusar (talk) 03:06, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Re: File Tagging File:Rudolf Kirchschläger.jpg

(your message: User talk:Jelte#File Tagging File:Rudolf_Kirchschläger.jpg)

I'm not the original uploader of the image, I just copied it to Commons. I left a message on the talk page of Themanwithoutapast. Jelte (talk) 11:02, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Hi Jelte. The script automatically puts a message on the talk page of the uploader on Commons, even if they are not the original uploaders. According to the upload logs on the English WP [1], he took the photo from this website. But they don't allow commercial use or derivative works ([2]), so it seems we can't use the photo anyway. --Kam Solusar (talk) 03:13, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

RE: File Tagging File:GELP_El_Expreso.png

Hi, the file is old enough to be of public domain. Anyways I added the source "". Bye. --Tincho GELP (talk) 23:02, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I added the no-source template because there was no information about the source of the image, which is needed to verify the copyright status. Could you add the exact URL, I couldn't find the image on that site. --Kam Solusar (talk) 03:20, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Tigre_volant deleted image

I notice that you deleted an image that was originally posted by user Tigre_volant. The image was called "File:Sankô_sakusen_1942.gif". I believe that the user has re-uploaded the same photo (still lacking information about the source) as "File:Sankō Sakusen 1942.gif"[3]. I was hoping you would take a look at the file, confirm that it is in fact a re-uploaded version of the deleted image and that it still does not meet Wikimedia's verifiability requirements, and take the appropriate action. Thanks. Bueller 007 (talk) 23:53, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Hi Bueller 007. I'm not an admin (I only tagged the image as having no information about author and source back then), so I can't say for sure if this is the same image. But I guess you're right, certainly seems like Tigre volant just uploaded it again after it was deleted. As it still does not say who created it or where it was published, I added a warning template again. --Kam Solusar (talk) 01:22, 1 July 2009 (UTC)


I noticed many of images tagged by you in Category:Unknown. I think you'll be great administrator for Commons. --EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:40, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for answer! I definitely understand your position... --EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:38, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Cristo de Recreo

Podrìas hacerme el favor de indicar por mi el permiso de subir la imagen no se mucho de esto yo la saque de Gracias.--Wady21 (talk) 00:00, 28 October 2009 (UTC)


Hi, I just added a link to the file description. I also found an alternative source: - Brutalowesten (talk) 10:30, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Die für die Datei gewählte Lizenz kann hier gelten, auch wenn dies in der Regel auf Fotos nicht zutrifft. Die Ausnahme von der Regel ist durch den gezeigten Inhalt begründet, der Angehörige einer heute als verfassungswidrig eingestuften Organisation zeigt, wodurch die Abbildung in den Verantwortungsbereich der deutschen Justiz fällt. - Brutalowesten (talk) 08:21, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Tagging of Simyard.PNG

The image Simyard.PNG is a screenshot of . I took a screenshot of it from my computer. Bradleyshorwith (talk)

Hm.. I probably should have used the "no permission" warning template instead of the "no source" template. Yes, it's a screenshot of the website, but the website (or at least some parts of it) is protected by copyright. So in order to use this screenshot on Commons, we would need the permission of the copyright holder (Erick Robertson, I guess), see Commons:OTRS. --Kam Solusar (talk) 17:06, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

I will contact Erick as soon as possible. But he is not on SimYard that often. So, if you want, you could remove it and I could just upload it again after I get Erick's permission. Bradleyshorwith (talk) Just added screenshot as the source.

That would be the best solution, I think. Just forward his permission to the support team (Commons:OTRS), and then you can either upload it again or request the image to be undeleted at Commons:Undeletion requests. --Kam Solusar (talk) 02:30, 8 February 2010 (UTC)


Tag, ich hab dich in letzter Zeit viel Vandalismus bekämpfen sehen. Daher wollte ich fragen, ob du vielleicht Interesse an den Rollback-Rechten hättest? Sie sind ganz praktisch, wenn man mit Vandalismus zu tun hat. --The Evil IP address (talk) 10:21, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Ok, hab's dir gegeben. Soweit ich weiß, ist es bei Rollback auch nicht so schlimm, wenn man mal was inaktiv ist, eine Entfernung der Rechte bei Inaktivität findet bei Rollback glaub ich nicht statt. --The Evil IP address (talk) 21:32, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
Dankeschön :o). Dann werd ich trotzdem mal schauen, ob ich in nächster Zeit etwas mehr Zeit hier auf Commons verbringen kann. --Kam Solusar (talk) 10:35, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

File:Anhangabau2g 1104609826.jpg

File:Anhangabau2g 1104609826.jpg more information. Jurema Oliveira (talk) 14:42, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Hi Jurema. I don't speak Portuguese, but even with Google Translate, I can't see any mention of the Free Arts License or any other free license on that website. Where does the website say something about the license? --Kam Solusar (talk) 18:07, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Porn should go

I have found several pictures on Commons that are unnecessary and pornographic. Here they are:

I need your help to get these off of commons so that it can be a more wholesome, educational place for the people.--RayquazaDialgaWeird2210 (talk) 22:38, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Those images aren't pornographic, just nude people. I don't see the need to delete those. But to propose the deletion of these images, you can start a deletion request if you want. Regards, --Kam Solusar (talk) 06:34, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

File:Nico Hoffmann - Verleihung des Verdienstordens B-W 2009.jpg

You deleted this image today without even giving a chance for discussion or research. I don't even remember what this photo was like, so I have no chance to research if I sent some kind of "okay" by the photographer to Commons. -- Meister (talk) 14:30, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Hi Meister, ich nehme an es geht um das Bild File:Nico Hoffmann.jpg? Das wurde nicht von mir gelöscht (bin hier kein Admin), ich hatte aber einen Schnelllöschantrag gestellt. File:Nico Hoffmann - Verleihung des Verdienstordens B-W 2009.jpg wurde bereits im April gelöscht, da es keine Freigabe unter einer freien Lizenz durch den Urheber gab. Laut User talk:Killiondude#Mass Deletion of Files From the Baden Württemberg State Ministry war es wohl ein Bild von der Website des Staatsministeriums Baden-Württemberg, bei dem der Uploader die dort angegebenen Nutzungsbedingungen missinterpretiert hatte. Das Bild File:Nico Hoffmann.jpg war laut deiner Bildbeschreibung eine bearbeitete Version dieses Fotos und musste deshalb leider ebenfalls wegen der fehlenden Freigabe gelöscht werden. --Kam Solusar (talk) 04:17, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

File:Iskanwaya 1.jpg, File:Iskanwaya 2.jpg

When I uploaded these photos, I asked the photographer for permission, and the photographer mailed this which I sent to the support team. This was like two or three years ago, and I don't have any details about this correspondence any longer. -- Meister (talk) 14:35, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Ich hatte die Bilder markiert, weil nach anderthalb Jahren kein OTRS-Ticket angegeben und die rechtliche Situation damit ungeklärt war. In der Regel bedeutet das, dass beim OTRS keine solche Freigabe eingegangen ist, oder die Freigabe nicht ausreichend war bzw. die urheberrechtliche Lage nicht geklärt werden konnte. Kann natürlich auch sein, dass beim OTRS-Team etwas schief gegangen ist. Ich hab deshalb mal auf Commons:OTRS/Noticeboard eine Anfrage gestellt, damit jemand von den Supportleuten mal schaut was da schiefgegangen ist. --Kam Solusar (talk) 04:17, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
Laut einem der Support-Leute auf Commons:OTRS/Noticeboard#File:Iskanwaya 1.jpg and File:Iskanwaya 2.jpg gab es damals wohl eine unbeantwortete Rückfrage vom Support mit der Bitte, die explizite Freigabe des Urhebers weiterzuleiten. Ohne eine solche dokumentierte Freigabe können die Fotos ja leider nicht genutzt werden. D.h. der Autor müsste noch mal angeschrieben werden und entweder diese Freigabe ausfüllen oder direkt an den Bildern auf Flickr oder anderswo eine freie Lizenz vermerken. Gibt es die Bilder noch auf Flickr, ich hab da leider weder die Bilder noch John Servayge finden können? --Kam Solusar (talk) 17:28, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

File:Seals of second treaty of Thorn.jpg

This picture was taken from the site that claim copyright, the photo is of seals from 1466 and its normally free pictures as all the seals are free to take. So the site have no right to claim copyright, they did not take the picture but took it from another site. Since i want this particular picture and cant find the source (i found source of other seals) I asked this site for permission to use it here on Wikipedia.

I hope that I will receive answer within two days, if not, i will search for the source that have no restriction on publishing those seals. Please give me few more days, i just saw the problem.

Best regards, Camdan (talk) 01:05, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Hi Camdan, it seems the image already got deleted by an admin yesterday. I don't remember the photo and what was stated on the image description page, so really I can't comment on the copyright status. Seals from 1466 aren't copyrighted anymore, of course. But photos of those seals can be copyrighted, depending on how much else the photo shows. If you're sure that the image is free enough/public domain, you can request the undeletion of the file at Commons:Undeletion requests. Regards, --Kam Solusar (talk) 18:10, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Help Needed

Hi there, you have tagged two images, File:RMS-SS_Corfu.jpg and File:RMS-SS_Carthage.jpg because of permissions. I'm just a beginner as far as uploading these images is concerned so I was wondering if you could help. Basically those pictures come from an online database of ships, and are licensed for use as long as the site is credited. One the web pages that I have given as the source of the pictures, there is a copyright disclaimer saying as such, so perhaps you could have a look and tell me what I should be doing with them so they are marked up correctly. Thanks Grimsworth (talk) 18:29, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Hi Grimsworth. The problem is, that the copyright situation of these files is not really clear. The website uses lots of old photos and postcards, given to them by various people. But are those people the copyright holders, or did they just find them on the net or made a scan? From my experience, people building websites like this don't pay too much attention to copyrights when using such old photos and postcards. That's okay for such websites, as the chances of getting sued by the copyright holders or their heirs are pretty low. But Commons is more strict in this regard, so files are only allowed if the copyright holder released them under a free license or if they aren't copyrighted anymore according to local laws. The images were most likely created sometime between 1931 and 1961, so it's quite possible that they are still copyrighted. Without any information about the author and the place and date of first publication, I'd say there's little chance to verfy the copyright status. --Kam Solusar (talk) 20:16, 21 June 2010 (UTC)


You want to delete this picture because the author is unknown. In fact the author was known here : fr:Image:Benditcoudryce.jpg but someone delete it. So I can't find the name now. The author of the picture took it in a meeting and ask me to crop it some years ago in the Atelier Graphique, what I have done, but I can't remember her name. But the picture was free, that's the reason why I put the ArtLibre tag. So, do what you want with this file, anyway, I quit wiki some years ago. historicair (talk) 21:58, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Hi Historicair. The problem here is, that there is no information about the author or the original source of the image on the image description page at the moment, so it's not possible to verify the copyright status. According to the logs at the French Wikipedia, it was uploaded by fr:Utilisateur:Jrmy. But it was deleted in 2007 (see log entry) because its source was unknown. And because the image on the French WP didn't have a valid source, we can't keep this file on Commons either - unless the original uploader (Jrmy) can provide information about the source so we can verify the license. Regards, --Kam Solusar (talk) 16:13, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Need source ?

Can you look at this ? Regards Stef48 (talk) 10:04, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

File:Meisterschale Zweite Liga.png

Hallo, du hattest neulich bei oben genanntem Bild den Hinweis eingefügt, dass ich die Genehmigung zur Verwendung nicht belegt habe. Ich hatte mich daraufhin auch direkt per Mail an die angegebene Adresse gewandt, bisher jedoch keine Antwort erhalten. Damit die mögliche Schnelllöschung nächste Tage nicht greift, frage ich einfach noch mal direkt bei dir nach (Wortlaut meiner Mail an

Hallo, ich wurde darauf aufmerksam gemacht, dass ich keinen belegten Nachweis für die Verwendung dieses Bildes erbracht habe:

Ich hatte diese Anfrage an einen User eines Forums ( gestellt und auch die Genehmigung erhalten, das Bild verwenden zu dürfen. Hier der zustande gekommene Schriftverkehr:

Ich: Hey, auf einem deiner Bilder ( ist die Schale für den 2. Liga-Meister ja ganz gut zu sehen, hättest du etwas dagegen, wenn ich die zum Bebildern von einigen Wikipedia-Artikeln benutzen würde? Da fehlt nämlich noch ein vernünftiges Bild der "Autofelge". Gruß

Antwort: Ups, sorry, hab ich gar nicht gesehen die Nachricht. Kannst du natürlich gerne nehmen.

Ich: Danke dafür, hab dich auch, wie es sich gehört, als Autor genannt. So sieht die Wiki-Version jetzt aus, falls du ihren Werdegang verfolgen willst.

Antwort: Super, dann wurde diese Wiki-Lücke ja auch geschlossen.

Reicht das als Grundlage oder muss ich die Genehmigung auf irgendeinem „offizielleren“ Weg einreichen?

Mit freundlichen Grüßen

Hannes Schütte aka. DerHans04

Reicht das erfahrungsgemäß aus oder muss ich es noch mal irgendwie anders belegen können? Gruß--DerHans04 (talk) 19:08, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Hi Hannes. Beim Support-Team kann die Bearbeitung von Emails auch schonmal einige Wochen dauern, je nachdem wie groß der Rückstand bei der Abarbeitung der hereinkommenden Emails gerade ist. In der Zwischenzeit kann man den Baustein Template:OTRS pending auf der Bildbeschreibungsseite einsetzen (per "{{subst:OP}}"). Sollte das Bild dennoch in der Zwischenzeit gelöscht werden, kann es jederzeit wieder hergestellt werden. Ich fürchte aber, die Freigabe ist nicht explizit und weitreichend genug für Wikipedia/Commons. Eine reine Erlaubnis zur Verwendung in Wikipedia-Artikeln reicht nicht aus, der Urheber muss explizit einer Lizenz zustimmen, die Bearbeitungen, Weitergabe und freie Verwendung (auch zu kommerziellen Zwecken) erlaubt. Eine deutsche Vorlage dafür findest du z.B. unter de:Wikipedia:Textvorlagen#Freigaben von Texten und Bildern. Die füllt der Urheber dann aus und schickt es ans Support-Team. Gruß, --Kam Solusar (talk) 03:29, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
Vielen Dank für die schnelle Antwort. Der Baustein wird einfach unter den von dir gesetzten Hinweis gesetzt?! Ich werde dem Rechteinhaber mal den Link zur Seite mit den Vorlagen für Freigaben zukommen lassen, sollte dieser in seiner Mail Bezug auf meine Mail an das Support-Team nehmen? Und was ist genau mit dem Punkt Vorgang bzw. der Erklärung Falls das Bild von einer Webseite stammt, sollte hier die URL des Bildes (nicht die URL der Website) stehen. Andernfalls kann dieser Teil entfallen. gemeint? Das Bild wurde, mit anderen Bildern des gleichen Users, in einem Forum gepostet. Sollte dann einfach die URL zum Bild (bei ImageShack gehostet) angegeben werden? Gruß--DerHans04 (talk) 15:05, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
Hi Hannes. Die genaue Position auf der Bildbeschreibungsseite ist eigentlich egal, Hauptsache man kann den Baustein sehen. Ich kenn mich mit den genauen Abläufen beim Support-Team auch nicht so genau aus, es kann wahrscheinlich aber nicht schaden, wenn deine Email an das Support-Team erwähnt wird. Ansonsten werden die Mails eventuell von verschiedenen Leuten abgearbeitet und man könnte dich deshalb dann nochmal wegen der anfangs unzureichenden Freigabe anschreiben. Bei den Angaben ist es wohl am Besten, wenn der Urheber schreibt, dass er das Foto geschossen hat und es auf [ImageShack-URL] und [Forenbeitrags-URL] hochgeladen hat. Ansonsten wird sich das Support-Team auch nochmal melden, sollte es da noch Unklarheiten geben. Gruß, --Kam Solusar (talk) 14:55, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

RE: Rastrojero Diesel.jpg

Hola como va? Gracias por darme aviso. La verdad es que yo subí esa imagen, con el argumento de que fue tomada hace más de 25 años. Y tal cual lo establece la ley, luego de ese tiempo pasa a ser de dominio público, caducando los derechos de su autor. Y donde dice "IME", esas son las siglas de la empresa "Industrias Mecánicas del Estado", por lo que habiendo pasado más de 25 años, no voy a ir preguntando quién sacó la foto. Solo me remití a la empresa propietaria del modelo exhibido. Si me puedes ayudar con respecto a si es válido poner "Desconocido, ya que la foto tiene más de 25 años", lo pondría. Pero la foto es 100% válida, tal como lo establecen las leyes de Copyright.

Gracias!!! --Diego HC (talk) 22:56, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Hi, how are you? Thank you for the warning. Yes, I have uploaded that image with the argument that it was taken more than 25 years ago. As law says, passed that time the image goes under public domain. IME means "Industrias Mecánicas del Estado" (State Mecanich Industries) so since 25 years have passed I am not going to ask who took the photo. Is valid to put "Unknown author since the photo has more than 25 years"? I think that the photo is 100% valid as law says
translator: --Dferg (talk · meta) 08:42, 28 August 2010 (UTC)


Good evening,

The file have been in good faith transferred from it. to commons.

Could you check to find if a Creative Commons license isn't granted for pictures, and if not, maybe send them a mail so they can give the permission through OTRS procedure ?

It seems to me the best procedure, as this picture is used on several wikis for a long duration. --Dereckson (talk) 19:49, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Hi Dereckson,
yep, I've seen that it was transferred from the Italian WP, but most projects still have lots of files with unclear or dubious claims of permission. The uploader was only active for a few days back in 2008 (+ 3 edits in 2009), so he won't be much help. I've sent an email to the yahoo email adress shown on this page asking for clarification about the license of both this file and File:NguyenLoc.jpg. --Kam Solusar (talk) 20:31, 1 October 2010 (UTC)


Regarding your message on my talk page re File:1948_Bob_Yonash_IMCO_Badge_Photo.jpg, this item is NOT copywritten. It is an electronic copy of a company identification badge from 1948. The company is one that Bob Yonash co-founded, so he had ownership of the photo's rights. However, none of Wiki's copywrite tags suits the situation. Please let me know how I can tag this photo so that it will not be subject to potential deletion. This is the second time the photo has been targetted.

Thank you. Iowahillgal (talk) 16:47, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Hi Iowahillgal,
the problem here is, that it's not really clear why exactly the photo isn't copyrighted. If it was created in the US and published before 1987 without a copyright notice, it would be in the public domain. But Commons:Licensing#United_States also says "Works created but not published before January 1, 1978 are protected for 95 years from the date they were registered for copyright, or 95 (for anonymous or pseudonymous works) or 120 years (for works by individuals) from year of creation, whichever expires first. " So it seems the copyright status depends on what year the photo was first published. I'm not sure if putting the photo on a company badge constitutes a publication. Maybe you could ask over at Commons talk:Licensing, where people with more knowledge about these details of US copyright are around. Regards, --Kam Solusar (talk) 23:14, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Kam, go ahead and delete the photo from Wiki. I have already removed it from the article due to the uncertainty of copywrite protection.

Iowahillgal (talk) 17:34, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Hmm, okay. I can't delete it myself, as I'm not an admin. But it will be deleted in a few days anyway because of the warning template on the image description page. Regards, --Kam Solusar (talk) 03:47, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

File:Sheena_Blackhall.JPG - copyright and permission

Hi, I have emailed the owner of the image and pointed out the requirement for her to ok the file with an email using the template to verify her permission for this file being used. As I recall she likes the page about her and sent me the picture to use but I've asked her to verify the permission/copyright status.

Hopefully it will be sorted soon, Thank you, Vinny

--Vinnyabdn (talk) 04:01, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Tatra T77 engine and Hitler.jpg

Hi, Would you go to the talk page of your nomination of deletion to check if the info there is enough and if it is, advise how to mark the licence correctly. I need guiding in this. --Gwafton (talk) 15:59, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

What is your problem...

... with making honest above the board deletion requests? Stop your disruption at File:Nishinoumi II.jpg and at File:Goebbels speech in 1933.jpg. Make a DR instead. Might be educational. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 12:24, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Tagging files that lack information about their author and source with {{no source}} is the standard way those files are handled here on Commons. You should know that by now. And those tags should not be removed unless the missing information is provided. So I don't understand your problem. If you want to keep those files, add the missing information. Just removing the template without explanation or good reason is usually considered vandalism. I'm opening DRs now to stop your edit war, but in the future I'll just report you at Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems so others can deal with you. Regards, --Kam Solusar (talk) 10:22, 22 March 2011 (UTC)