More information is available at the community portal. You may ask questions at the help desk, village pump or on IRC channel #wikimedia-commons (direct access). You can also contact an administrator on their talk page. If you have a specific copyright question, ask at Commons:Village pump/Copyright.
|(P.S. Would you like to provide feedback on this message?)|
Hello Kamahele, I have asked to delete File:Leo Kornbrust-01.jpg as it is an exact duplicate of File Kornbrust-oggelshausen.jpg.
Tip: Categorizing images
Thanks a lot for contributing to the Wikimedia Commons! Here's a tip to make your uploads more useful: Why not add some categories to describe them? This will help more people to find and use them.
1) If you're using the UploadWizard, you can add categories to each file when you describe it. Just click "more options" for the file and add the categories which make sense:
2) You can also pick the file from your list of uploads, edit the file description page, and manually add the category code at the end of the page.
- [[Category:Category name]]
For example, if you are uploading a diagram showing the orbits of comets, you add the following code:
- [[Category:Astronomical diagrams]]
When picking categories, try to choose a specific category ("Astronomical diagrams") over a generic one ("Illustrations"). Pro-tip: The CommonSense tool can help you find the best category for your image.
- Image:Leo kornbrust-01.jpg was uncategorized on 30 November 2009 CategorizationBot (talk) 10:50, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
Hello K., I have made a subcategory Category:Villa Visconti (Bietigheim-Bissingen) for the more than twenty images.
- According to Phleps' website 21 sculptures are placed on the Skulpturewiese in Freiburg as a permanent exposition. --Gerardus (talk) 09:03, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
achte in Zukunft bitte darauf deine Uploads von Phleps-Skulpturen (u.ä.) selbst mit FOP zu kategorisieren oder besser noch mit der FOP-Vorlage zu versehen. Legal sind diese Bilder nämlich nur unter "Panoramafreiheit", da sie noch dem Urheberrecht der Künstlers unterliegen. --Túrelio (talk) 09:32, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
Kupper steht dort seit 1971. Für alle Skulpturen des Symposions besteht FOP. Worin besteht nun ein Problem gerade bei Maria Kupper? User:Kamahele
- "Für alle Skulpturen des Symposions besteht FOP" - wer sagt das? Wenn mein Eindruck vom Überfliegen des damit zusammenhängenden Artikels richtig ist, scheinen einige Skulpturen wieder verschwunden zu sein, womit die FOP-Bedingungen vermutlich verletzt wären. Ich habe dieses Bild nur als pars pro toto herausgegriffen. Es ist grundsätzlich Aufgabe des Uploaders zu prüfen, ob tatsächlich die jeweils gültigen (Aufstellungsort) FOP-Bedingungen erfüllt sind, und dann das Bild auch entsprechend zu labeln. --Túrelio (talk) 09:52, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
- All sculptures in St. Margarethen are made at the symposion-site (that's the point from symposiums!) and meant to stay there. Only due to gross negligence by the authorities some sculptors, among which Karl Prantl, have removed their contributions. Karl Prantl for instance has placed his sculptures in his own park in Austria. But still fifty odd sculptures remained in St. Margarethen. I myself never label my photos with FOP as there is no absolute obligation or necessity to do so. If you want that, well make it an obligation. Thousands of images from sculpture in Germany, Switzerland, Austria and the Netherlands are UNLABELED right now and I do not intend to make it my job to do it, so why asking User:Kamahele. We have discussed this before: all images we are uploading in our countries are made under FOP conditions and that must do. That is applicable as well for the Phleps sculptures in Freiburg. User:Kamahele (known as Benutzer:Ebhauff on de.wikipedia) is a sculpture-friend of mine and we do a lot of articles for nl.wiki and de.wiki together. Most of his images are used in our mutual articles and we are both very careful in choosing these images and we know perfectly well what FOP is about. Greetings,--Gerardus (talk) 11:18, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
Vogel beim Nestbau
Hallo Kamahele, die Bilder Image:KaC-11 010.jpg und Image:KaC-11 011.jpg (Vogel beim Nestbau, 1976, - Deutschland, Augsburg, Campus der Universität) zeigen ein Werk, dass von Erich Schelenz und nicht wie angegeben von Walter Schelenz stammt. Eine Anfrage beim Beuamt Augsburg ergab folgende Antwort: "... Und tatsächlich mussten wir leider feststellen, dass Sie recht haben und das Kunstwerk von Erich Schelenz und nicht wie in der Broschüre angegeben und auch vor Ort beschrieben von Walter Schelenz ist. Wie das passieren konnte, ist leider nicht mehr nachvollziehbar. Wir bedauern diese Namensverwechslung auf jeden Fall sehr und werden die Universität als Herausgeber der Broschüre sofort darauf hinweisen und auch die Beschilderung vor Ort ändern lassen." Ich habe mir erlaubt, das zu korrigieren. Viele Grüße -- Eloso (talk) 20:59, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
- Vielen Dank für Deine Recherchearbeit und die Korrektur. Woher hast Du den richtigen Künstler gekannt? Kamahele 06:27, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
Notifying you of an image removal under the DMCA
Some images that you uploaded to http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Freiburg_Oldenburg_113.jpg and http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Freiburg_Oldenburg_110.jpg were removed based on the receipt of a takedown notice made pursuant to the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, 17 U.S.C. 512 (the “DMCA”). The Wikimedia Foundation (“WMF”) takes alleged copyright infringement very seriously and carefully examines each takedown notice received and the image in question for compliance with U.S. copyright law. This image was one of 59 photographs included in a DMCA takedown notice received by WMF of various publicly-installed sculptures around the world created by Claes Oldenburg and Coosje van Bruggen.
Some of these sculptures are located in countries that recognize “freedom of panorama” for sculptures, while others are not. Currently, U.S. copyright law does not recognize freedom of panorama for works of art, such as sculptures, and thus the copyright holder of a sculpture has the right to exclude others from publishing images of that sculpture, so long as it still enjoys copyright protection. While it is true that some of the sculptures in question here are located in countries whose copyright regime conflicts with the U.S’s regime, current U.S. conflict of law principles indicate that U.S. copyright law would apply in evaluating the scope of a copyright holder’s rights.
WMF strongly supports a change in U.S. copyright law that would extend freedom of panorama to artwork so that more people can experience beautiful and thought-provoking works of art that they would not otherwise be able to enjoy. However, WMF is a U.S.-based organization that must comply with U.S. laws as they presently exist, including U.S. copyright law, conflict of law principles, and the DMCA.
What can you do?
If you feel that this particular image does not infringe the alleged copyright holder’s rights, you can contest the takedown notice by submitting a “counter-notice” to us. Before doing so, you should understand your legal position and you may wish to consult with an attorney. If you submit a counter-notice, the alleged copyright holder can stop us from restoring the content by suing you. Please note that WMF will not be a party to any legal action that arises from you sending a counter-notice, and that WMF is unable to provide you with legal advice.
More information on DMCA compliance may also be found at:
Filing a Counter-Notice
If you choose to submit a counter-notice, you must send a letter to firstname.lastname@example.org asking WMF to restore this image. The letter must comply with DMCA standards and must contain the following:
- A link to where the content was before we took it down;
- A statement, under penalty of perjury, that you believe the content was taken down mistakenly;
- Your name, address, and phone number;
- If your address is in the United States, a statement that says “I consent to the jurisdiction of the Federal District Court in the district where my address is located, and I will accept service of process from the person who complained about the content I posted”; or if your address is outside the United States, a statement that says “I agree to accept service of process in any jurisdiction where I can be found”; and finally,
- Your physical or electronic signature.
Pursuant to the DMCA, WMF must inform the alleged copyright holder that you sent us a counter-notice and give the alleged copyright holder a copy of the counter-notice. We will restore this image within ten (10) to fourteen (14) business days, provided that the alleged copyright holder does not give notice of suit to restrain re-posting of the material. Philippe Beaudette, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 20:48, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
|Category:Monuments_and_Memorials_in_Bietigheim-Bissingen has been listed at Commons:Categories for discussion so that the community can discuss ways in which it should be changed. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.
If you created this category, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for discussion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it. If the category is up for deletion because it has been superseded, consider the notion that although the category may be deleted, your hard work (which we all greatly appreciate) lives on in the new category.
In all cases, please do not take the category discussion personally. It is never intended as such. Thank you!