User talk:Martin H./Archive 15

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.


Archive Note

Page was archived on February 1, see the archive. --Martin H. (talk) 19:04, 1 February 2010 (UTC)


Hello, I was wondering if images from my own flickr page would be acceptable. Also, what are some places you can get images without copyright, thank you. You've been a big help.--Textaholic (talk) 21:18, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

You can upload images here you own the copyright. Images from your own flickr account are only ok if you created them yourself as a photographer. Free image resources are Commons:free media resources. See also the welcome box on your talkpage. --Martin H. (talk) 21:21, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Another sockpuppet

Hello Martin, there's another suspected sock of Fredy.00 that I've just blocked on cs.wikipedia. See Special:Contributions/Becher0451. He's just uploaded another photo from web without a proper source. Best regards, --Mercy (talk) 09:56, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Checked this. --Martin H. (talk) 13:44, 3 February 2010 (UTC)


Hi Martin. You had some suspicions about this image in the past, and after looking I have them to. I'd welcome your comments at the deletion discussion I've started - Peripitus (talk) 12:02, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Category:Photographs by Walther Dobbertin

Martin, I fixed dates in Category:Photographs by Walther Dobbertin, please double check. Are there other known sets of Bundesarchiv images which have incorrect dates? --Jarekt (talk) 16:21, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Great! I tooke some samples and it looks correct, I will check more random examples next days. This may come from my poor english: I translate the "-" (until) as a period of time, like the creation of a sculpture that toke many years, I suggest to replace the "-" with "between". However, this may come from my poor english, Im not sure.
Some other images are also wrong, but I cant name them so clearly like this. I already checked some of the WWI images marked as beeing from 1914 but beeing from between 1914 and 1918. Same applies to many WWII images marked as being from 1939/40 but beeing from between 19(38)/39/40 and 1945 - so from the periode of WWII and not from a year. The nature of this error, transfering only the first year, suggests, that the error is larger in earlyer years of periods and smaller in later years of that period, that was 1906 for Dobberting, thats 1914 for WWI, thats maybe +/-1933 for the Third Reich and 1938/39/40 for the Holocaust and WWII. The date for post WWII images is more correct. sometimes the caption of East German photographs, especially sports, say, that the photo is from an earlyer event but the date refers to the time of the recent event, but thats a minor error. Esp. pre 1945 photos need some attention, the date is often wrong or it contains a "ca." at the BArch indicating that it might be from some other year. Many Commons:Bundesarchiv/Error reports are related to "wrong" years, in fact the date was simply transfered wrong and the BArch correctly indicate a period of time (1938/1945) instead of a year (1938). --Martin H. (talk) 17:07, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
You are right about "-" and "between" I am changing it as we speak. The correct years are shown on barely readable Bundesarchiv watermark. I will see if I can find some more, but there might not be any more so well defined groups that one can use a bot to correct. --Jarekt (talk) 14:35, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
Category:Photographs by Max Baur was already corrected, but I dont know if I removed every problems. Some of this images were categorized wrong by me to Potsdam in 1928, however they are not from 1928 and some photographs are not even from Potsdam. I think I catched the most - by hand of course, I forgot that there is the watermark ;) --Martin H. (talk) 15:23, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

User:Zourich, User:Lapaykura

Hello, please check those users, same file, same source, more like WP:Duck case, but just to be sure --Justass (talk) 23:43, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Yep, --Martin H. (talk) 23:52, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

X after Y

Please be careful of edits like this; it wasn't a collaboration. The "after" information needs to be there to indicate that the first artist's work derived from the second one. Postdlf (talk) 06:28, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the correction, moved that information to the source field. --Martin H. (talk) 12:02, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Photos uploaded by Denegomm

I received permission by the owner to use photos. I place a link to her email in multiple sections. What do i need to do to clear this up? --Denegomm (talk) 18:19, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

A permission for Wikipedia is not enough. The copyright holder must give everyone the permission to reuse the image everywhere and for every purpose including commercial reuse. --Martin H. (talk) 18:52, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Ludovisi throne and picture copyright

Hello Martin I am ally gally. I am writing to ask some quesitons about the pictures I have uploaded. I am the copyright owner of all the pictures. But I did not understand exactly what license I should have chosen and what kind of permission I should send to the e mail address that was listed in the page. Could you please help me ? Thanks best Allegra

Please forward a written permission from the copyright holder (photographer) following COM:OTRS, this information is also on your talkpage. I note that you not indicated with your uploads that this images were published elsewhere before - on various websites. Also this are not original photographs uploaded directly from your pc but images taken from other websites - so I think the claim "own work" (means: photo by yourself) is wrong and you in fact grabbed the images from websites yourself. you may forward a written permission to OTRS indicating why you have the copyright or how the copyright was transfered to you. If you are not the author of the image please upload them with correct author information. --Martin H. (talk) 01:55, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Advincula Bio pictures

Martin H., I have been trying to track a number of the photos that I tried to use on this bio page ( )as well as some others as per your instructions last December 16th. I am having difficulty for a couple of reasons. Many of the photos are in excess of 40 years old. You asked that I notate the photos with the name of the person who created it. In most cases that has proven to be impossible. Most of the photos in question were taken of Arcenio Advincula with his camera. He can't remember who he gave the camera to to take the picture. In all cases he has possession of the originals and only copy of the photo. He scanned these for me to use in his bio. Because of the nature of the bio and the fact that there hasn't been a lot written about Mr. Advincula the photos constitute a source of reference for a number of the statements that I have made in the article. Is there any way that these pictures, owned by him and in his sole possession, be used for this purpose? I appreciate your continued assistance with this project.

Mike Whiteley --Katagwa (talk) 02:01, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

I will not bother with Wikipedia rules or your work there, but you can not use images to introduce unpublished facts in absence of the required third-party published reliable source. See en:WP:OI. Aditional the article already contains many self-published sources. The question "someone else toke a photo of me with my camera (on my request)" Is one of the most difficult questions on this project, it is answered in the second posting at Commons_talk:Licensing/Archive_20#A_stranger_takes_a_photo_of_me_with_my_own_camera.2C_who_owns_the_copyright.3F. So regretably no, not so easy. --Martin H. (talk) 02:35, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Oi, como você está?

Eu coloquei as fontes do meu arquivo Centro de Goiana.jpg, mas ainda assim eu não sei como deixar ele livre de ser apagado, você pode me ajudar???

Vectorized image

I vectorized the previous image and upload it under the art work , is it still a problem? thanks --Cheshmehregi (talk) 00:22, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes, it is the same problem as with the original jpg. --Martin H. (talk) 00:25, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
hello , can you please give me some information about uploading an image? first i uploaded an image from a magazine which was published 14 years ago , wikipedia didnt accept it . So i vectorized it , it is still a problem , the person died 15 years ago , how can i find an image of him which i can publish in Wikipedia? thanks --Cheshmehregi (talk) 00:31, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Vectorizing (or corectly: Rasterizing) has no effect on the original copyright. The deletion discussion on the original image is still open, thats the page to solve the problem, not here. --Martin H. (talk) 00:36, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Fratelli Mancuso 2010

Hello Martin, I am going to e mail the permissions today, should we e mail the license also for the photo you have deleted already? Or should I email after uploading it again? thanks

Before uploading and refering to the filename, it can be restored. --Martin H. (talk) 14:53, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Ludovisi throne Altemps Inv8570 n3 new.tif

Hello Martin, I am writing regarding this picture, because the one that I uploaded is just a detail of another version of the same picture (File:Ludovisi throne Altemps Inv8570 n3.jpg) that I have modified with photoshop. I think that it shoud be ok because it is just another version of something that had already been accepted on commons. Thanks Allegra

No, its not ok! The image File:Ludovisi throne Altemps Inv8570 n3.jpg is a photo of a 3D object, the photographer has copyright, the photographer licensed the image so that everyone can reuse it.... as long as the reuser follows the license terms. You MUST attribute the original author! You must follow the license conditions, otherwise you violate copyright and the original photographer can sue you and demand a compensation. Images on Commons or elsewhere are not fair game, you must follow copyrights. --Martin H. (talk) 16:01, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Well hope now it is ok.

Close, will correct it. The Public Domain license is still incorrect, it means that everyone is allowed to reuse the image without any requirements, but thats incorrect: You must uphold the attribution requiremen of the original work. --Martin H. (talk) 18:41, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Lizenz Bestätigung

Gutten tag Martin.H Ich habe am 3.2.10 die Bilder

File:Nevada-tan.jpg und File:Nevada-tan,Comic.jpg die ich von der Seite her habe Raufgeladen. Diese Bilder Kursieren seit geraumer Zeit im Internet und eine Lizenz ist nicht auffindbar bzw. freie verwendung. Voralem bei dem File:Nevada-tan,Comic.jpg ist kein Copyright da dies Anonym gezeichnetes/gepostet wurde in einem Imageboard. Vom ersten Bild ist eine Zensierte Version auf dieser Website zu finden [1] Ich hoffe das es irgend einen Zwischen weg gibt um diese Bilder in den Beitrag einzufügen [[2]]

Leider nein. Selbst wenn es ohne Autorenangabe veröffentlicht wurde ist es ein Werk und als solches geschützt. Siehe COM:PRP. --Martin H. (talk) 18:39, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Need help

Hello, i wanted to ask someone to how to change File:Wikipedia-logo-pa.png. It has the word ਇਕ which really should be spelled ਇੱਕ so this typo is all over the punjabi wiki since its on the main punjabi wikipedia logo. Gman124 (talk) 20:41, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

I have zero or very small ability to edit images, especially I will not edit images placed so prominently. We must find someone with good abilities of graphic editing, maybe ask at the graphic lab? --Martin H. (talk) 21:19, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
Ok thanks. Also which page is that graphics lab thing? Gman124 (talk) 23:27, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
Found it. thanks. Gman124 (talk) 23:41, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
Ok, there are also graphic labs on various Wikipedias, maybe also on pa wikipedia. --Martin H. (talk) 23:42, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Bild zu Chalarodon madagascariensis

Hi Martin

Schau Dir bitte meinen Kommentar unter diesem Bild an:

Danke und schöne Grüße, Eva — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk • contribs) 21:05, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Ich habe erstmal die Versionen vereint um diesen furchtbaren Bot-rename loszuwerden. Aus der Versionsgeschichte wird nun auch ersichtlich: mehr als "Family Opluridae (?)" habe ich zur Identifizierung nicht beigetragen. Ich habe keine Ahnung was es ist, ich habe das Bild nur aus Interesse am Tsingy de Bemaraha Strict Nature Reserve hochgeladen. --Martin H. (talk) 21:13, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
P.s.: Nach der Lektüre von de:Madagaskarleguane würde ich dir aber zustimmen, auf jeden Fall Oplurus, nicht Chalarodon. --Martin H. (talk) 21:23, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

How can I edit a misspelled title?


I got a message from you asking for permission for the picture, which I emailed. I am the artist EL TAROT and I do grant permission. Also, I want to learn how to corrected a misspelled file name... I followed instruction but the names have not been changed. I also made a mistake on this file name:,_Puerto_Rico.jpg. It should say "Respuesta" instead of "Respeusta". Misspelled once again...

Just learning! Peace.

Javier eltarot Villar

Please forward a written permission as requested. The names have not been changed but they will be changed, and administrator will review the rename request and execute it. --Martin H. (talk) 16:54, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Deleting Flickr images Man Arenas

Hi Martin.

The image you have delete was in no case "copyrights violation" . the picture's autor has authorize the use of it. So, explain me why do you erase things without asking?

best --Mikarouse (talk) 16:42, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

The "picture's autor has authorize" - the uploader to flickr, who authorized something, is youself. Uploading images to Flickr first to launder them to Wikiedia is flickr washing. Why do you try to esteblish a third person on flickr refering to him as "the author" to try making the image look free? --Martin H. (talk) 16:53, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

okay I send the permission request to the owner owner --Mikarouse (talk) 19:01, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Just to comfirm i received permission to use two images from the autor. permission granted was send to wiki commons too. --Mikarouse (talk) 17:16, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

permission granted ticket #2010020610020195--Mikarouse (talk) 10:10, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

An OTRS volunteer will confirm this by time. --Martin H. (talk) 14:28, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Martin --Mikarouse (talk) 17:14, 12 February 2010 (UTC)


Hi. I understand why you would normally delete a redirect such as Commons:User:Willscrlt. However, I am pretty sure that I indicated on that page why I had created that page. It was a landing page from some other wiki projects. There are a few cases where some of the cross-wiki templates I use get a little confused, and they end up sending people to Commons:User:Willscrlt instead of User:Willscrlt. If you aren't familiar with interwiki linking--especially in templates used on multiple projects, you probably aren't aware of this problem. Since the time I originally wrote those templates, I have figured out alternative ways to avoid this problem, but I still need that page for the old templates to redirect correctly. Would it be possible for you to restore the page again? Thanks! —Willscrlt “Talk” • “w:en” • “m” ) 17:27, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

No need for that redirect, use [[:commons:User:Willscrlt]]. I changed the deletion summary to a more helpful link, the cross-namespace redirct is not required. --Martin H. (talk) 17:33, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
Yes, [[:commons:User:Willscrlt]] works great when entering the link manually. However, the templates that I created attempt to figure out the current location where they are installed and then route people on the other wikis to my page here (mostly for attributions, I think). Unfortunately, when I first created and implemented those templates, I wasn't as skilled in parser functions, magic words, etc., and I know there are still templates installed on several WMF wikis that will use that deleted page as the landing page. This is primarily the case on foreign language wikis. I really should go through all my old templates and update them, but that's a pretty daunting task given all the sites and also how little time I have right now to do it. I know... if I wrote the templates I should be willing to maintain them... And I will eventually, and get them all to point to the right places. It just would be nice if that redirect could stay in place so that the landing page will still work if and when people click through. Thanks. —Willscrlt “Talk” • “w:en” • “m” ) 18:17, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
Even your userpages in or pt.wp or crh.wp - i checked some other global contribs too - which you not edited for a year have ANY link to that page. So no need to bother everyone entering "Commons:Use..." to the search with an irritating redirect to your user page at the end of the search suggestions. --Martin H. (talk) 18:41, 6 February 2010 (UTC)


Estimado Martin H.

Puedo certificar sin duda, que la imagen File:María Elisa Camargo.jpg es un obsequio realizado por la Srta. Camargo al usuario Saloca. La prueba me fue presentada en un video que ella se tomó exclusivamente para el usuario. Lamento mucho que desconfíe de la honorabilidad de administrador en wiki-es. Saludos, BetoCG¿decías? 20:34, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

First: Why creating an flickr account for this - second: Whats User:Salocas role here. The user obviously not created the image himself, but it is his flickr account. So he must provide correct author information and provide the authors written permission. --Martin H. (talk) 20:54, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Daphne Akhurst

Go look at Ref 2 on the Australian Copyright and see that it is in fact in the public domain by when the picture would have to be taken, which means her death has a bearing because it could not have been taken after 1955 can it?Bluedogtn (talk) 21:56, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

No page hopping please, but yes, i missed that last sentence. If we have evidence that the photo was first published in australia or is under australian copyright it might be indeed ok. --Martin H. (talk) 22:42, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
Okay, I just wanted to make sure you got the message, but I will take this discussion back to the help desk! Thanks.Bluedogtn (talk) 19:46, 7 February 2010 (UTC)


hi martin, silly me. can i leave it on or shld i change anything in description its still free use stuff right

before i upload other images i like and find usefull from the national archive images shld i do something different there are also thousands of great historic images in the archive that are not on flickr commons yet some of those wld be good to have in wiki commons

and yes when i can id like to help catogorise the museum images

tks! Ms.F.

ow, sorry just saw yr other message. shld i delete that one.

aha there already gone. im starting to get the drift of this. sorry if i sound stupid...

Already answered on your talk. --Martin H. (talk) 03:16, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

yes read it tks! i tried as per yr suggestion. actualy found a few good ones which i tried to categorise. BUT then i got this


Hello Martin! You could delete this image? Why is it being used constantly by User Pridothling. Truu (talk) 03:24, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Done. Looks like he ignores everything :/ --Martin H. (talk) 03:27, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

File:María Elisa Camargo.jpg

Could you tell me what is the problem with the picture? I load it directly to my Flickr account, because the actress gave it to me (She knows that I would use it for her wikipedia article) Did i miss something? Thanks. Saloca (talk) 05:09, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

That was also my thought that someone gave it too you. Well, at the moment the upload claims that YOU created the image and first published on Flickr. Thats entirely wrong. The author is someone else (name of the photographer or company), the source is something else (were was it first published, who issued it). Correct the source, correct the author and forward the written permission from the original copyright holder to COM:OTRS. Dont flickrwash, even you might think that is comfortable and lowers your work with providing correct source information and written permission. --Martin H. (talk) 05:13, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
But if the photo was taken by me for her, and then she decided that this one was the photo she wants to gave me for illustrate her article? Should i specify that i know her? Don´t think so ! I´m not pretty good dealing with fans. Saloca (talk) 05:28, 7 February 2010 (UTC) (BTW, Would you mind to answer me on my talk please?) Thanks.
You just said the actress gave it to me. So I dont think its your photo. Also I noted that you had contact with someone on es.wp who claims beeing here - even though I strongly doubt that. --Martin H. (talk) 05:30, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
Of course i said the actress gave it to me, she´s the original owner. If you look carefully at my post on drini´s page, I said, I do not take the photo, that´s what if means...But leave it that way, I'll do next, i´ll take the photo with my cellphone in the meantime I would ask someone else to take a picture of me (while it took the photo of her) so we can check than i´m the author of it ok? Thanks for your help. Saloca (talk) 05:42, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
Thats odd, simpley provide a written permission from an official email. --Martin H. (talk) 05:44, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
A formal email from who took the photo? Mmmm, I'm pretty sure her mom don´t have something like an official email, but I have videos of her with me. I even have a video of her saying that she writes on Wikipedia (my friend i mean, not her mom). Saloca (talk) 05:51, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Sigh. Someone must have given the image to you, with giving the image they must have agreed to a specific free license and that everyone can reuse the image everywhere, perpetually for every purpose including money making purposes. Forward this written conversation to OTRS. Im not interested in how your relation to someone is. Everyone is supposed to act inside the Commons rules, I do so too. If I ask someone for a photo I ask the person to write the permission down, underwrite the document and/or put a company stamp on it, scan it and sent it to me. That procedure is even above the standards. So whats so difficult? I think you are experienced enough. --Martin H. (talk) 06:04, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Some one to someone? You got to be kidding me. Already got an email from her releasing the photo for any purpose i want. Should i send it to otrs? Or you need it too? Saloca (talk) 08:12, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
OTRS only. And please correct the author information from "you" to something more appropriate. And dont flickrwash in future, dont know who gave you that bad tip. --Martin H. (talk) 15:35, 7 February 2010 (UTC)


No cumple el Copright.--Beat 768 (talk) 06:20, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Creo que se debería de eliminar esta imágen ya que no cumple las normas para permanecer en Commons. Gracias--Beat 768 (talk) 06:50, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
Already deleted, thanks for the note. Use {{copyvio|reason}} better to tag non-free files. --Martin H. (talk) 06:53, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
Thanks.--Beat 768 (talk) 06:59, 7 February 2010 (UTC)


Note: removed personal attack [3]. — Dferg (talk) 18:50, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Saw it, thanks. I not understood that posting. --Martin H. (talk) 18:51, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
I can send you a translation if you wish, but that was a clear personal attack towards you (and strong). — Dferg (talk) 18:53, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
No, dont want it ;) --Martin H. (talk) 18:54, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Amaterasu and those things

In that case, wich licensce should I use?--Gospodar svemira (talk) 19:24, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Simplyfying the licensing depends on the authors and the publication. It is important who the author(s) is(are) and how long they are death. In some countries the copyright depends on the first publication and the period of time between publication and today. See Commons:Licensing and look for the country the author or the authors come from and how long copyright lasts in this country. If non of the listed copyright expiration reasons is applicable and if you not have a written permission to a free license from the copyright holders you can not upload the image. This uploads are reproductions of works, so you can not upload them without the originals beeing public domain due to copyright expiration or without having a permission from the copyright holders. --Martin H. (talk) 20:23, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

deleted media

why was my media pic deleted i created and took the picture for my magazine? this is not good for the media and i will be taking further action. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Musicreviewu (talk • contribs) 09:53, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

It was not deleted but it will be deleted. You are asked to provide written evidence of permission. See the information on your talkpage please. --Martin H. (talk) 14:26, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Trakai Sluszka picture

Dear Maritn H.

I dont know if You receive message that i wrote so...I just wanted to say that i replyed on your kind message!
regarding the ostoja_moscic picture. Full size picture are restricted. Small sice pictures are free everywhere. Although I did not paint this coat of arms, it is of the clan and therefore, if anyone is to give right to use it, it would be me or other clan members. Then, what tag should i use then? And what more licence info should I pas? That its free for everyone to use this small picture?

Camdan (talk) 21:46, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

File:Peter Ujvagi.jpg

Hi! You can delete this picture, I got another one with right permission :) --Eino81keskustelu Flag of Hungary.svgFlag of Finland.svg 22:11, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Done. Good work! --Martin H. (talk) 19:07, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Royal Air Force photo

Hi Martin. I wonder if you might know the copyright restrictions on photos from the British RAF? I was wanting to upload a photo from the RAF taken in 1944 of the crew of one of their bombers, but wasn't sure what copyright restrictions apply. Many thanks, again. MarmadukePercy (talk) 10:50, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

UK Crown copyright, thats copyright on government created works, has some shorter expiration terms. See Commons:Licensing#United Kingdom. Have a look at the very usefull flow chart linked there. Looks like copyright on photographs created by UK gov created prior June 1, 1957 expired 50 years after creation. Take examples at Category:Imperial War Museum Collections or Category:UK Government images. --Martin H. (talk) 19:05, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
I just uploaded. Thank you much for all the help again. I did see what you meant about the UK gov copyright before 1957. Thanks for explaining that! Best, MarmadukePercy (talk) 19:32, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
You're welcome! --Martin H. (talk) 19:34, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

thanks and AWB question

Thanks for approving my autowikibrowser thingy. I have a question that you might be able to answer or provide an example of. How would I make a filter that takes all images in the Category:NYPL_Stereoscopic_views_of_Independence_Hall,_Philadelphia that have names that match the expression *"Liberty Bell"* and add them to Category:Stereoscopic_views_of_the_Liberty_Bell. Oh well thanks in advance and have a good day! Andyzweb (talk) 16:18, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

On the left side of AWB select the 'Wiki search (text)' from the drop down menue and enter liberty bell +incategory:"NYPL Stereoscopic views of Independence Hall, Philadelphia". That will find them. This search function (+incategory:"category name") also works in the search field on Commons. For some more common search terms it can of course bring some false hits. --Martin H. (talk) 18:58, 9 February 2010 (UTC)


Can you mark this Martin? Its "cc by generic" on flickr but the license version is different. Thank You, --Leoboudv (talk) 01:28, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Hi Leo, in such cases (Semiautomatic transfer from Wikipedia) I do the following:
  • Remove the transwiki trivia from the Information template, it not belongs there, the license not requires to keep that info so it is only ugly mess and needless extra information making it hard to find the correct author and source information. The original upload log is enough to provide the wiki history of the image.
  • Correct the license
  • Let a bot make the review if the image is still under correct cc on flickr. Even a trusted user can make mistakes, a bot likely not, so for not modified images I prefer bot reviews.
I edited the image according to that and waite for FlickrreviewR. Its on my watchlist now, so if something goes wrong I will see it. --Martin H. (talk) 04:16, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Thanks for your help. I will edit the license too next time if I remember. Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 04:40, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

File:John lennon and may pang 1974.jpg

Hola Martin H. un usuario de la wikipedia en español subió esta imágen, según el tiene el permiso ¿qué se debe de hacer? Saludos y gracias.--Beat 768 (talk) 04:23, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Hi Martin H. a user of the wikipedia in Spanish, this picture up, as he has permission. OK? Greetings and thanks.--Beat 768 (talk) 04:32, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
No, he grabbed it from somewhere, e.g. here or here. --Martin H. (talk) 04:33, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
Thanks.--Beat 768 (talk) 04:34, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

This picture is about to be deleted need to be approved and I got this photo of copyright permissions in this photo where John Lennon comes with May Pang spoke with a manager in facebook page of May Pang [4] and gave me the "yes" and I said:

“This photo is ok to upload. If there are any photos that should not be have uploaded, it will be taken down. Thank you for understanding.”[5]

Isn't May Pang is a manager in facebook page of May Pang [6]

--Josedm (talk) 04:49, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

A fanpage on Flickr can not give you permission that everyone can reuse this press image for every purpose including commercial use. They simply not own the copyright. --Martin H. (talk) 04:51, 10 February 2010 (UTC)


Why did you do this [7] [8] [9]?. --Keepscases (talk) 07:19, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Because the images are simply not old enough to guess a pd-old - or in case of Mexico a Template:PD-old-100. A source is REQUIRED, an author is required and it mussed be accesed if the image is public domain according to the requirements of Commons:Licensing. Keeping the image without the trash information is possible for your old paintings, but not for such "recent" photographs. --Martin H. (talk) 07:17, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
Who thinks that? you? 1869 is not old enough for you?, also the photographer died before 100 years. I don't know what are you calling "recent" photographs. --Keepscases (talk) 07:23, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
Recent means: Likely not public domain according to the rule: 100 (or 70) years after the photographers death. Which of this 3 images if from 1869? --Martin H. (talk) 07:25, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
Now these, this [10] and this [11] are not copyvios!!, they are not same. --Keepscases (talk) 07:28, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
You claimed that YOU created the photograph, thats a lie. The image is simply edited, editing images does NOT make you the whole owner of the result! Remember, that without the photographer your work is exactly 0, it would simply not exist. So on the result, the edited image, you have some copyright for editing and the original photographer had copyrights. Regretably you stole the image without the photographers permission. --Martin H. (talk) 07:30, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
You're saying that they are copyvios. that's a lie. The image is not edited. The second one is closer than first one. Why are you saying that I stole something??. what's wrong with you??, maybe I'm not a expert like you but I'm not a lier. --Keepscases (talk) 07:35, 10 February 2010 (UTC) Klick on compare. Stop the wrong claims. --Martin H. (talk) 07:37, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
(edit conflict) I think there's a bit of a language barrier occurring. Keepscases, can you provide a source for these photos? Where did you get them? Additionally, if you could provide data about when they were published, we could determine if they are in the public domain. You mentioned 1869. Were they published then? If so, it is probably in the public domain. We just don't have enough info right now. Killiondude (talk) 07:38, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
Look again [12].--Keepscases (talk) 07:43, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
Still not your original photo. --Martin H. (talk) 07:44, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
They are not copyvios. You shouldn't add that template. --Keepscases (talk) 07:45, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
Of course they are copyvios! Not your photo, althoug you claimed. Photo is used elsewhere (it is the same, only in a different presentation) which might build evidence who the true copyright holder is. wrong license, wrong source, wrong author, uploaded agains the policy of Wikimedia Commons... well, thats copyright violation. --Martin H. (talk) 07:47, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
And also it not helps you to remove your false author claim. The photo is still uploaded against the policy. Photo = Copyright = Author and source reuqired = Permission required from copyright holder. You uploaded it with no author, no source, no permission. Have you ever read Commons:First steps? --Martin H. (talk) 07:54, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

According to these [13] [14] [15], all these presidents are already dead and of course his photographers, these were took since 1869!!, it is not old enough for you?. --Keepscases (talk) 07:50, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

1: Garza was president in 1915. A photo of him is not even 100 years old! COM:L#Mexico requires: The photographer must have died 100 years ago. That means: Photo taken ~1915, photographer died before 1910?? No, thats not possible.
2: Same situation, photographer must have died before 1910, no evidence given. José María Pino Suárez was president 1913. Photo is simply grabbed from [16] without paying any attention to copyrights.
3. Francisco Lagos Cházaro was president 1915, so no evidence that the photographer died before 1910.
Provide sources and provide the required evidences. Only removing the false claims is not a sollution for works that are not old enough. --Martin H. (talk) 08:00, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
Keepscases posted on my talk page, but I asked him to keep discussion over here (though I did reply there). I just wanted to leave you a note about that Martin, and for anybody else trying to follow this discussion. Killiondude (talk) 08:05, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
He may, I would personally prefer if he simply provide full source and author information for his uploads. I can personally not live with wrong author claims on all images. I can live with e.g. File:Mariano Arista.png where I removed his wrong informations because the image is old enough and is better to have no information then false ones. But for likely not public domain images it is his duty to provide exact and accurate information and not upload everything as "own work". --Martin H. (talk) 08:09, 10 February 2010 (UTC) (note: Old enough not excludes the possibility of recent paintings. I cant exclude that possibility, so a bad taste remains.)
You know what?, I won't be looking for "evidence" every door in all the world if the photographer died before or after 1910. I just know that nobody can live more than 90 years since 1915 - 2010. If you can live these years, please tell me how can I do that, but if not, then delete them, because I won't upload any "recent" (as you said) photo because maybe the photographer can be immortal or not died in the 1985 Mexico City earthquake. --Keepscases (talk) 08:12, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
Maybe a person can not live that long - copyright can! Author died 1985 in the earthquake: Copyright will die in 2086! (Copyright expires 100 years pma/post mortem autoris; Los derechos de autor están vigente toda la vida del autor más 100 años tras el final del año de la muerte del autor) --Martin H. (talk) 08:14, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
The 1985 Mexico City earthquake was just an example obviously. If I made a mistake uploading these "recent" photos, please detele them, I won't upload any "recent" photo again and I'm sorry because I'm not an expert and you are the administrator here.--Keepscases (talk) 08:21, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
Please forget about this administrator thing. Im a user with technical abilities other users not have. Maybe the waiting time for {{no source since}} will bring something or maybe it will motivate others to search for free images with expired copyright or published under a free license. --Martin H. (talk) 08:25, 10 February 2010 (UTC)


Could I transfer this image to Commons?--Beat 768 (talk) 04:17, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

A little help

Could you please take a look at Ticket 2010011910007482? Stifle said that he couldnot open the ticket as it showed an access denied. I do not understand what is wrong. Shall I send the permission again? -- Legolas from Mirkwood 08:56, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Im not an OTRS volunteer. --Martin H. (talk) 08:58, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

How to retrieve EXIF data

Hi Martin H. I have just seen I made a mistake on uploading those 20minutos images. Could you tell me how you retrieve EXIF data from an image? I have installed an add-on for my Firefox but it's not working... Thank you Lobo Huella lobo.svg (howl?) 09:31, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Im a Windows and IE user, so cant give you advice with FF. I use the ExifTool by Phil Harvey, it requires me to download the image, but placed on the desktop I can simply drag the file and drop it over the tool and a window with all EXIF appears. --Martin H. (talk) 09:34, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Flight Time photo

I got the photo from this website all flight time members have it posted on thier profiles [17] Mlpearc (talk) 03:26, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Thats a start for a sourcing. Of course the whole work is not entirely your own work but a combination of various works from various authors. --Martin H. (talk) 12:21, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Help woth photos

Hi. Can you help me. Is about a user that upload photos with copyright. He uploaded photos as Joe Hennig, Brett DiBiase, SmackDown vs Raw videogame covers, mistico como rudo... Also, he uploaded promotions photos like this Logo AAA.png. I think that it is ilegal. Can you erase the photo? Thanks. --Techarrow (talk) 12:07, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

The uploader of the AAA is blocked, the AAA logo is template:PD-textlogo. What user and what images do you mean? --Martin H. (talk) 12:19, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Roman Forum image

Thanks for deleting the image. I did not realise it was a copyright infringment or I would not have linked it. If anyone feels strongly about using a recinstruction image it can be uploaded to wiki as fair use. The UCLA recontruction is similar and is not a private recreation like the Rome 2.O project and is more reasonable to use for educational purposes. I wonder if these images as part of the California University could be in public domain....but something tells me that would be a stretch.--Amadscientist (talk) 15:10, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Please refer to a filename, article or external link, I cant find what image you mean. --Martin H. (talk) 15:13, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

hello again

hey well i got someone to fix the following image File:Wikipedia-logo-pa.png, but i wanted to ask if we have to do something before we start seeing the updated image on wikipedias. because on pa wikipedia i still see the unupdated image as the logo. Gman124 (talk) 17:18, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

I dont know where in the software the logo is written, I think localsettings.php so no user can change it. The logo of pa wikipedia might also be the default value Wiki.png, thats pa:ਤਸਵੀਰ:Wiki.png, and not the copy here on Commons. Otherwise it can also take some time due to browser/server cache. --Martin H. (talk) 19:23, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
ok, i have uploaded the newer version of punjabi wiki that was loaded here by User:Quibik. Thank You for you help. Gman124 (talk) 02:29, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
Though i do have one more question. I thought we weren't allowed to have duplicate files on individual projects, if they were already here on Commons. So, is it an exception to wiki logos? Gman124 (talk) 02:33, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
Never mind. went to english wikipedia version of the image was explained there. Gman124 (talk) 02:50, 14 February 2010 (UTC)


Hello Martin, I'm used slmcom I know that I have a bad history in the commons.

I do not know how to prove to you I'm the shoot in football clubs in the area where I live. There are pictures I'm Taken By my Mobile, which exists now in the commons.

I will only show I will use a camera and one mobile phone and I will mention it here, and I'm ready to put my picture and be trusted to have.

I hope re-slmcom

File:Brueghel - Sieben Laster - Luxuria.jpg

Hello there, I'm glad you noticed my changes to this file. However, I'm quite sure this print was executed by Pieter van der Heyden. There are 3 names mentioned on it: Brueghel, H. Cock and PME (=Petrus Mercinus, the latinized name of Pieter van der Heyden). Because Brueghel is mentioned as the designer (inventor) and H. Cock as the publisher (excudebat cum piv.), Van der Heyden is the principal executor. Also you say there are 2 versions of this series: one executed by Bruegel and one by Van der Heyden. I think they are both one and the same, only with one not showing the writing underneath. So you might want to have a look at that again. Regards, Vincent Steenberg (talk) 18:23, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

That requires some reading, will have a look. Maybe the same as with Big Fish Eat Little Fishes, original by Brueghel 1556(?), engraving by van der Heyden 1557 (with attribution in honor to Bosch). Then the source needs update and van der Heyden will be added as author. --Martin H. (talk) 19:25, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
ok, maybe the British Museum collection database will come in handy. This museum also owns a complete set of this series. Regards, Vincent Steenberg (talk) 20:15, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Patko erika

Hello Martin. I received your message at huwiki. Do you have any proof that Patko erika and the person on flickr is the same person? Can you please give me any list of files she has uploaded to Commons? I could not find any user named Patko erika or CollinEdward on Commons. Were there any IP checks or what is the suspicion based on? The images she uploads to huwiki are screen shots and have no metadata, while the photos @ flicr are taken with a sony cam with metadata. Regards, --Teemeah (talk) 20:54, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Patko erika (talk · contribs) on Commons was uploading images from CollinEdwards on Flickr. Patko erika = CollinEdwards on Flickr (evidence: dates of uploads) = Patko erika on hu.Wikipedia (evidence: image inclusion). All images from CollinEdwars on Flickr are stolen from random websites, in most cases from other flickr users. --Martin H. (talk) 20:58, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
note: some edits … --:bdk: 21:16, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
Yes, but the origin is hu.wp. Evidences are edits like this, ex post this is vandalism because a free image was removed for a stolen. Comments at COM:AN/U please. --Martin H. (talk) 21:21, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
yup, already noted that … just thought about the ip ;-) --:bdk: 21:30, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
After you deleted my evidences / Nachdem du meine Belege gelöscht hast die zu einem Nuke aller Bilder von dem Flickr account führen sollten :P Danke, hab bezüglich IPs auch schon etwas geschaut. --Martin H. (talk) 21:34, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
… sind immer noch genug vorhanden *seufz* --:bdk: 21:41, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Hi Martin, thanks for the explanation. I have written erika an email asking her to clarify the coincidence of upload dates. I still believe this is a kind of misunderstanding, her edits on huwiki have been perfectly all right and she is a 15 year old teenage girl. So far she was always following given advice. She is doing highly valuable work on huwiki categorizing and sorting animal articles in a proper way. I can't imagine that all of a sudden she would be establishing a fake account now. or - if she did, she is not aware of what copyright realy means which is no wonder considering her age. I'm asking for your pateince in this matter until I sort this out with her in her native tongue.--Teemeah (talk) 21:59, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your help. Though that will not help to save the image as everything from that flickr account is clearly not self-created but copied from elsewhere, it toke me 15 minutes to find 30 of the images beeing copyright violations, not cherry-picked images but images in their order of upload. I hope your writing will help to creating the required understanding and prevent any future problems. --Martin H. (talk) 22:50, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
Hello Martin, I exchanged a few emails with Erika. Just as I thought before, she was watching the flickr account (subscribed to it). She was not aware that the photos are stolen from elsewhere, she just knew the CC licences are valid for Commons, and that's it. I guess CollinEdwards should be reported @ flickr for abusing the account by posting copyrighted photos under cc. By the way, this whole treatment of hers here made Erika promise she will never again upload anything to commons, not even own photos.... I think people should be treated with more care, and inquired in a bit more friendly manner, before shouting their heads off and accusing them with things they haven't done. I acknowledge your efforts to keep Commons clean but if we lose contributors because of mistreatment that won't help the project. The thing that happened to Erika (uploading CC photos from flickr in good faith and then bumping into the wall of accusation) can happen to any of us who transfer photos from Flickr. We are all exposed to the fakers of Flickr, please don't forget that. Thank you, regards, --Teemeah (talk) 13:57, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for your help. But I refuse your accusation. I checked some 40 samples before making my statement. Take a look at the facts: On January 13 the first image was uploaded to Flickr and uploadoaded imidiatly to Commons as the very first image here from that flickr account January 13 + January 13, one image... what a coincidence. Also many other images where uploaded to flickr and commons and flickr and again commons. Also e.g. the image Platysmurus leucopterus (and the other edits too, found 3 in total) is an edited image (from here), the edit was made using the same software as the first upload by user. You may belive in coincidences, I dont. I hold up my finding: This flickr account was created for nothing but flickr washing. At best the user will delete this bad flickr account to prevent disapointment of good faith uploaders in future. Personally I make the removal of the flickr account an requirement to turn back to good editing. If this is not done the users resignation is sad but no loss, sorry. --Martin H. (talk) 17:57, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Timbaland and Cascada's Screenshots

Hi Martin Why you deleted File:Cascada - Everytime We Touch screenshot.jpg and Timbaland_-_The_Way_I_Are_screenshot.jpg? Screenshots from videos are everywhere on Wikipedia and are the only images we can use on the italian Wikipedia for songs! Teoamez (talk) 01:02, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

But not on Commons. In opposite to the english Wikipedia under fair use non-free content is not allowed on Commons, see Commons:Fair use. On Italian Wikipedia this may be different too, have a look at the local policy and instructions. --Martin H. (talk) 01:25, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
So I have to use something like this Right? Thank you!
According to it:Wikipedia:EDP per and it:Wikipedia:Copyright_immagini#Screenshot_protetti_da_copyright, yes. --Martin H. (talk) 01:54, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
Ok, thanks for your help! --Teoamez (talk) 02:08, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Kosztolanyi, Karinthy, Jesenska

Hello, thanks for your quick reaction. Kosztolanyi died in 1936, Karinthy died in 1938 and Jesenska died in 1944. The photos had been taking when these writers were young. It really seems to me that all these photos belong to Public Domain. Looking forward to your answer. --Tulipanos (talk) 16:52, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

I cant say something on the copyright, otherwise I would not have tagged the images but simply correct them. Of course they need a correct author, date and a better source link not directly to the image but to some archival description or a reference to a print publication. Copyright lasts 70 years after the authors death, IMO speculations about public domain without doing research can not start for images younger ~130 years. No date is given here but it looks like this is not the case. --Martin H. (talk) 17:21, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Images published in Hungary before 1940 by an unknown author are in the public domain; see Template:PD-HU-unknown for details. Of course, some sort of proof of the author being unknown is required. --Tgr (talk) 10:14, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Exactly, by default I prefer to assume an author as known, saying someone is unknown requires some research. --Martin H. (talk) 12:50, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Please, respond

Err, sorry to bother you Martin, but you may need to take a look at File:Mediosdevida famiiaortega.jpg. Regards, Finn Rindahl (talk) 01:07, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

File:Flickr - The U.S. Army - (303).jpg

and other recent uploads have errors 403 warnings on it. --Martin H. (talk) 23:22, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the warning, I'll investigate. - Zil (d) 20:02, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
Didnt note that I talked to a bot ;) --Martin H. (talk) 20:20, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Editing Page

Hi Martin. I'd like to know if you can help me puttting the portuguese languages in the message that appears for anonymous users when creating a new page. Like this [18]. I'd like you to put the message below if you can.

Português: No momento você não está logado. Mesmo você estando livre para editar, seu endereço IP (visível na sua página de discussão, onde você pode checar mensagens enviadas para seu IP) será gravado no seu histórico de edições. Criar uma conta ira preservar seu endereço IP e fornece-lo com muitos outros benefícios. Por favor não salve edições de teste. Se você quer experimentar, por favor use a Sandbox.

Thank you very much for the attention. Mizunoryu 大熊猫❤小熊猫 (talk) 23:53, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

You mean editing the page Will have a look later. --Martin H. (talk) 11:08, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

File:Nicole Natalino en vivo tour cristal 01-25-2010.jpg

Hi Martin H. absolute need authorization for this photo I uploaded this is your email [mcn.17@] your name is Marcos Canales to meet I would not surprise please.-- 00:14, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

??? --Martin H. (talk) 14:09, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
What happens is that I would have an entitlement to this image remains on Wikimedia Commons OTRS send an email but have not received a notification that this image I wanted this law.--Josedm (talk) 23:32, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

User:Flavius92 again

Can you please look at COM:AN#File:Olivia_De_Haviland_1933.jpg? -Nard the Bard 06:54, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Will have a look after lunch. This is a sockpuppet of User talk:Flavinhoadler, on May 6 he started, at this time Flavinhoadler was blocked for a week. --Martin H. (talk) 11:17, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
Can you block this <expletive deleted> for forging licenses? He does it again[19]. -Nard the Bard 23:10, 23 February 2010 (UTC)


Hallo Martin, könntest Du bitte so nett sein und mir das Bild File:Andreas Staudinger, Schiedsrichter (1).jpg nach File:Helmut Trattnig, Schiedsrichter (1).jpg verschieben? Ich hatte mich leider in der Person geirrt. – Vielen Dank und liebe Grüße Steindy (talk) 13:00, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

PS: Das Tool, das Du mir empfohlen hattest, habe ich mir installiert und schaut ganz brauchbar aus. Dennoch traue ich mich im Moment noch nicht drüber, es anzuwenden. Leider sind meine Softwarekenntnisse nicht so gut, dass ich nicht befürchten müsste, dabei Fehler zu machen. Ich werde es aber dennoch im Auge behalten und vielleicht mit zwei oder drei Bildern einmal versuchen.

Schon geschehen. Bei Fragen bezüglich des Tools kannst du dich gerne an mich wenden. Zudem beobachte ich User:Steindy/gallery bereits, also wenn du das Tool nutzt werde ich es sehen da das Tool die Uploads dort auflistet und kann dir behilflich sein wenn Fehler sind. Zumal ich ja versprochen habe dir auf Wunsch die Copy&Paste ersetzung mit Benutzertemplate etc. gerne zu erledigen. --Martin H. (talk) 18:21, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
Vielen Dank nochmals, Martin! Wenn ich dann die einzelnen Spieler hochlade, werde ich das Tool einmal versuchen, da diesfalls dann alle Bilder einer Mannschaft aus einem Ordner kommen. Ich hoffe, damit einigermaßen klar zu kommen. – Liebe Grüße Steindy (talk) 09:46, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Please, respond

Hello, please respond. My previous error on the photo that rose was wrong since not responded, I hope that you respond this time, I do not think that I have to ignore only because ask many questions.

I will write the form, decime if there is something wrong, by the more than minimum: -Filename: (file name)
- Descripsion: (Descripsiòn)
- Source: TV programme
-days: desconocido
-Autor: desconocido
-Permiso: Yes
- Other versions: no
-License: PD-AR - Movie

PS: I said that the photo had more than 30 years itself, not be if this has something to do
My respect, Blue Sky01 (talk) 15:10, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Have you read Template:PD-AR-Movie? --Martin H. (talk) 18:18, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Reggae en español

ey, I don't speak english very much, just a little. the following images:

File:TheThreatmen Album.jpg
why do u delete ?, these are taken from my photocamera in front of my TV, there's no copyrighted and in the image in any side appears the logo or property logo.
File:Sub7-2.15.png take from, I just re-uploaded it.
the others images, I can't probe that copyright 'cause I don't have info, so you can delete others.

There is copyright on the television program, making a photo of your tv does not make you the sole owner of copyrights, is narrowly the same as a screenshot is. You can not upload photos from TV. --Martin H. (talk) 23:40, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Ellen DeGeneres Photo

Ah, my bad. Apologies. Connormah (talk) 01:49, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

No problem, I remembered the image only by accident and looked at the article on en.wp around March/April to find it. --Martin H. (talk) 16:12, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

hi martin

martin the fil of tabriz city map is a map published bu turism organisation of Iran, and in Iran all government works r free to use look at the description, I have put the web adrs of the organisation there. you may find the website adrs in the top right corner below the phot of clock tower of tabriz as well. Pournick (talk) 04:40, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Do you have any evidences for that claim? Commons:Licensing#Iran doesnt say anything like this, maybe the usual documents like laws or official texts are public domain, but this is a combination of drawing and photographs and it clearly enjoys copyright and is not exempted from copyright per the copyright law linked in COM:L. Government works beeing exempted from copyright is something that applies to U.S. federal government works e.g. by law, but in most if not all other countries this is different. --Martin H. (talk) 16:11, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Mile Budak

The picture had to be published before 1949. Why? I my-self come from a ex-Yu state and my parents were educated then. The SFRY did not publish pictures of the Ustaša because they considered them major criminals (which they were, by the way) and they have definitely not published official portraits of them in the press or anywhere else, which actually means that your template is not needed, don't you think? :-) Cheerios, lad --A1B2C3D4 (talk) 10:27, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

I can not follow the logic of the argumentation: Just because something wasnt published for a period of time doesnt mean that it was published before. Evidence is missing. --Martin H. (talk) 16:05, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

File:Lie to me image.jpg

If I recall correctly, this is just the words "Lie to me" with a *. I thought that simple type face was not copyrightable? –xenotalk 14:30, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

It was not a simple typface but an image, photo or video, with a typface on it. The background image is of course not free and fair use for television series screenshots like in en.wp is not allowed here. --Martin H. (talk) 16:04, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
(Ah, so I recalled incorrectly) Could you restore it temporarily or email it to me so I can upload to en.wp under fair use claim? Thanks, –xenotalk 16:42, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
Maybe it was File:Lie to me logoimage.jpg that I was thinking of being just simple typeface? –xenotalk 16:43, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
Ill restore it temporary here. No, it wasnt. --Martin H. (talk) 16:43, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
eh, they're the same =) Go ahead and re-delete. Thanks for your assistance. –xenotalk 16:53, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Protected edit

Would you have a look at Talk:Main_Page#Panorama_POTD ? -- User:Docu at 22:43, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Forgot to answer this for the following reason: Something on that talkpage makes it impossible for me to watch it. At the moment Im using a relatively slow computer and for this page my browser crashes. Is the talkpage extremely large? The history says no. I now came to the brilliant idea to read the page in verbatim, too late now, sorry. --Martin H. (talk) 13:45, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
It might the image notes on the panorama. We will have to make sure they don't display when transcluded on main page.
I think there is still time to change it. We can also prepare it for the next one. -- User:Docu at 13:55, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
Its the image notes, I found the way to your /sample page, its loading but its taking some time and is close to crash. How do I surpress image notes? My knowledge of mainpage issues, editing and consensus is simply too small to do this immediately. --Martin H. (talk) 14:10, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
I fixed it on the talk page. If you preview Main Page with {{Main Page/2010-02-19}}, you should be able to make sure that it continues suppressing notes there as it does now.
I had left a note on Village Pump a couple of days ago. Most changes on Talk:Main Page don't seem to draw any comments, even "day in images" stuff. -- User:Docu at 14:20, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
Thanks, you made it work! Looks good. -- User:Docu at 14:34, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
Your welcome. Indeed the mainpage of Commons has very low community attention, keep on caring about, Docu! --Martin H. (talk) 14:38, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
I guess I have to fix one of the "day in images" pages now ;) When checking the result in an another browser, I just noticed that most languages don't even display today's POTD, they are 1 or 2 days behind. -- User:Docu at 14:53, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

File:Edinburgh montage.jpg‎

This file should now be deleted. Bjmullan (talk) 00:32, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

No hurry. But you can orphane it in the meantime on Wikipedia and at best replace it to reduce the damage the deletion will do. Or you find the source images, but thats an boring pice of work. --Martin H. (talk) 20:22, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Please check the source of File:香花辣椒城.jpg

In the file File:香花辣椒城.jpg, it seem already has a source, please check it again. Thanks--Mys 721tx (talk) 02:21, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Someone else nominated it for deletion as blatant copyright infringement. Someone put the image on his own flickr and claimed it licensed under a cc license. Thats not possible, only the copyright holder can put something under a free license. --Martin H. (talk) 20:15, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Sock ID

I'm blanking on the name of a sockpuppeteer... the one who's so damn fond of Zac Efron & Corbin Bleu. He/she/it(?) popped up again as User:Thamer... I've blocked him and clear out the files, but I can't remember who the original user was so I can tag Thamer as a sock. Do you know?? Tabercil (talk) 16:08, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Marked as sockpuppet. --Martin H. (talk) 20:13, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
Thank you. Tabercil (talk) 22:53, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

File:Lomé, DSC00742 - by Fanfan.jpg and File:Lomé, DSC00741 - by Fanfan.jpg

Hi! You have uploaded these two images from Picasa. The images are not available on Picasa so we can not do a {{picasareview}}. Will you have a look at it? --MGA73 (talk) 19:01, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Dont know, the images are not longer online, so I cant say any more then anyone else can say. What do you expect? --Martin H. (talk) 16:47, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
Normally we prefer that admins do not review their own uploads. But unless you can get owner to comfirm license there is not much we can do. If you are sure you checked images when you uploaded you could add a review per the date you uploaded ({{picasareview|Martin H.|some date}}). It looks better that you do it than I do it :-) --MGA73 (talk) 20:10, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
Ill bet my life that this images where freely licensed at the time I toke them from Picasa, but I prefer the review too. They are not used anywhere and they never was, so please delete them, thats just digital photographs and no loss, will find others in future. --Martin H. (talk) 23:46, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
OK. I deleted them now :-) --MGA73 (talk) 20:29, 25 February 2010 (UTC)


Why are you deleting my files? It's my own work. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Redgianluca (talk • contribs) 13:38, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Answered this on your talk. --Martin H. (talk) 16:47, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

what should I do?

Dear,Martin H. I'm a wikipedia newbie,you have deleted all the photos that I upload from my two flickr accounts, I used this tool (, it's very easy for me,I don't know how to fill in the form by the normal way. there are 2 pieces of pictures don't belong to me,they are File:香花辣椒城.jpg,File:陶岔渠首卫星图片.jpg,sorry for this, I was not very clear the rule, but others you deleted all belong to me,now I would like to know how can I upload my photos, if I still upload from flickr, you may block my wiki ID, so I leave a message here, please give me some suggestion, thank you very much.

--Imaxy (talk) 16:36, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

You can upload images here you created entirely yourself. Regretably your claim that 2 pictures from that flickr stream are not your own work is not true. E.g. this image is not your own work although you claim it your own, the same applies to some other images. Under this circumstances I refuse to help you. --Martin H. (talk) 16:46, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

File:Broxbourne White Water Canoe Centre (drawing).jpg

On Feb 5, you put a no permission tag on this image, which I uploaded. I emailed the required information to and received no reply. What do I need to do? HowardMorland (talk) 16:48, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Wait some more time or ask at COM:OTRSN. Ill mark the image according to your information. --Martin H. (talk) 16:49, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

File:San Jose altar.jpg

Hi Martin, I wonder if you can help me renaming a file. The user from Flickr describe the image as San Jose Church but this is one of the domes of the San Juan Cathedral in old San Juan, Puerto Rico (near San Jose). Here another flickr user with a similar image , and here the LOC images from San Jose Church (building has been under renovation since 2002). I visited to the two churches long time ago, I don't know why I didn't catch my mistake, must have been wishful thinking. Thanks, --Jmundo (talk) 17:04, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Please use {{rename|newname.ext|reason=reason for rename}}, I actually dont know what target you prefer, "San Juan Cathedral altar.jpg" maybe? Dont know. --Martin H. (talk) 17:09, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
Done, thanks. --Jmundo (talk) 17:16, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
And move done, thanks too. --Martin H. (talk) 17:17, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

File:Гюнтер Панке с Вернером Бестом.jpg, File:Гюнтер Панке.jpg, File:HofmannOtto.jpg

Что не так в этих файлах? Что надо исправить,чтобы я смог ими пользоваться при написании статей в Википедии? Обьясните пожалуйста!

Copyright lasts 70 years after the photographers death, see the deletion request subpages and Commons:Licensing, here Commons:Licensing#Germany. --Martin H. (talk) 17:48, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Without these photos can not create a full article in many languages. When booting I always put a template {PD-old}, and then me on the right. You did not let me do it, and immediately began to remove. --KolesnikovEO (talk) 10:32, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

I not removed something, I nominated it for deletion. You are not "right" with placing a pd-old on something if the requirements of that copyright template are not fulfilled. The requirement is simple: The name of the author (photographer) is known and that person died 70+ years ago. --Martin H. (talk) 10:34, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

There is a correct pattern that still need? And your suspicions create only bureaucracy.--KolesnikovEO (talk) 10:37, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Your source and author change not makes the image public domain (You cite a 2005 source from Russia but claim the image beeing first published in Poland without a copyright notice). Also your changes are identified as "fishy", I would say: Manipulation. See the deletion requests. --Martin H. (talk) 10:38, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Manhattan panorama under clouds

Good evening, i was looking for this amazing pic for a day but i couldn't remember where i downloaded it on the web, thus i would like to apologize for my mistake, by the way, you are totally free to delete it. Once again, my apologies and my gratitude for your great work, cordially--Masterdeis (talk) 18:50, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

I would prefer if you correct all information. Also if you "downloaded an image from the web" I have no idea how you come to a point claiming it entirely your own work. Commons:Upload is clear here: Uploading an image through "It is entirely my own work" is obviously wrong... --Martin H. (talk) 18:52, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Would you...

Help me with this picture? Look, this is the case:

29 January 2010, was tagged as a "missing essential source information". 13 Febrary 2010, was nominee for deletion, beacuse doesn't have any source of work, the autor has been many times announced that many of his pictures are over.

According to the first tagg, this image shouldn't exist on Commons or in English Wikipedia. Thank you. --Daviddavid00 (talk) 20:04, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Deleted, collage/montage of non-free images. --Martin H. (talk) 23:43, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
Was re upload. Here. -- 12:49, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
Again. Why don't you block the user? -- 03:11, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

how strange

so the picture of a french LVF hurted you because you're german right? how strange. that's just too bad there are plenty of pics like this anyway. Cliché Online (talk) 02:38, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Whats an LVF? I dont have such nationalistic feelings, sorry to demolish your simplified view of the world. --Martin H. (talk) 09:44, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
P.s.: now that I see what image you mean: File:Lvf in russian front mg34.jpg is still not your own work, so you can not release it into the public domain nor claim authorship on it. --Martin H. (talk) 09:45, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
its a bunderarchive image that was edited by me. bunderarchive pictures are free of copyright. this mean this picture edited by me is public domain. like it or dislike it. Cliché Online (talk) 10:29, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
ehhhm... no. BArch images are protected by regular copyirght: 70 years after the photographers death. The rightholder is the Bundesarchiv in many cases as the heir. Provide a BArch signature. --Martin H. (talk) 10:31, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
seems this one from 1944 is copyrighted (free:nein) while others like this one from 1941 are PD in wikipedia. how is this? there isn't 70 years from now on to 1941. Cliché Online (talk) 11:27, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
Both are not public domain, they will become public domain 70 years after the photographer died. Some images are released by the BArch under a Creative Commons license so that everyone can reuse them with attribution and share alike. See Commons:Bundesarchiv. But this images are not public domain, they are still protected by copyright the regular term but usuable under a free license. --Martin H. (talk) 11:32, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
i see. that's pretty subtile indeed. i'll figure it out. Cliché Online (talk) 11:40, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Files: Festival Deti Nochi: Chorna Rada

Hi Martin,

On 15 January you deleted following images (although I sent permissions to email stated and written about it to your user-talk):

  • File:Detinochi_chornarada3-2006_visitors2.JPG
  • File:Detinochi_chornarada4-2007_visitors2.JPG
  • File:Detinochi_chornarada5-2008_visitors1.JPG
  • File:Detinochi_chornarada4-2007_performance1.JPG
  • File:Detinochi_chornarada3-2006_concertPhantasmagoria.JPG
  • File:Detinochi_chornarada4-2007_visitors_club.JPG
  • File:Detinochi_chornarada5-2008_visitors3.JPG
  • File:Detinochi_chornarada5-2008_concertDemonoid13.JPG
  • File:Detinochi-chornarada6_2009_ticket_big.jpg
  • File:Detinochi_chornarada5-2008_stage.JPG
  • File:Detinochi_chornarada1_poster_b.jpg
  • File:Detinochi_chornarada3_poster_b.jpg
  • File:Detinochi_chornarada4_poster_b.jpg
  • File:Detinochi_chornarada5_poster_b.jpg
  • File:Detinochi_chornarada6_poster_b.jpg

I uploaded them again. On 12 February you again put to deletion following images:

  • File:Festival_detinochi_chornarada5_poster_b.jpeg
  • File:Festival_detinochi_chornarada4_poster_b.jpeg
  • File:Festival_detinochi_chornarada2_poster_b.jpeg
  • File:Festival_detinochi_chornarada3_poster_b.jpeg
  • File:Festival_detinochi_chornarada1_poster_b.jpeg
  • File:Festival_detinochi_chornarada5-2008_visitors3.JPG
  • File:Festival_detinochi_chornarada4-2007_performance1.JPG
  • File:Festival_detinochi_chornarada3_2006_visitors2.JPG
  • File:Festival_detinochi_chornarada3-2006_concertPhantasmagoria.JPG
  • File:Festival_detinochi_chornarada4_2007_visitors2.JPG
  • File:Festival_detinochi_chornarada_5_2008_visitors1.JPG
  • File:Festival_detinochi_ticket.jpeg
  • File:Festival_detinochi_chornarada5-2008_stage.JPG

It's already the second time. I've written to you 2 times, that I had mailed the right confirmation to email Weeks are gone and nobody cofirms that they received the permissions from me. I did everything right, but I start to think that you personally don't like somth. about our festival, so you delete the images again and again instead of fixing the problem. I do own rights for all these images and I ask you again not only formally delete the images, but sort it out why nobody of Wiki confirms reception of my emails with confirmation of rights. Thanks in advance. P.S. Today I sent the rights confirmation again, 4th time... Svarog1 13:06, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

You are not writing to me but to the Wikimedia Foundation at COM:OTRS. Maybe it is simply backloged, maybe there is a problem. I see a problem with your writing "Author=Svarog1" on works by various authors. Why dont you simply write the company and author name inside the author field? That might be the more exact, the most accurate information and from the watermark it in any case not private information, so no need to hide behind a pseudonyme. --Martin H. (talk) 13:10, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
(Or to collect various authors under one pseudonyme. --Martin H. (talk) 13:11, 23 February 2010 (UTC))
(But I do own all the rights for all these images, because these images are done by official photographers and designers of festival, our photographers, who works for is my agency, the organizer of festival. I still got no answer from COM:OTRS, that's weird. Should I just again wait for my files to be deleted because of "backloging" or "problem", as you said? :(((( Could I send permissions to you? Could you change the status "may be deleted"? Thanks in advance... --Svarog1 (talk) 12:21, 25 February 2010 (UTC))

Carduelis atrata

Hello. You posted a deletion notice for the file Carduelis atrata male.jpg. An email has been sent from the author (Antonio Arnaiz-Villena) confirming authorship and permission for use. Could you please remove the notice? Or maybe tell me what else do I need to do? Thank you. --Gomezprieto (talk) 12:47, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

I marked the image as permission pending, an OTRS volunteer will confirm this by time. --Martin H. (talk) 12:56, 23 February 2010 (UTC)


Could you please check this user, looks like he is contributing from the same Saudi Arabia IP range as User:Chace Watson -Justass (talk) 16:29, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Hope its not to unfriendly against him to say: Lol - he found a new funny rational to declare images public domain. --Martin H. (talk) 16:32, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
User:Tohami looks like new name of well know person --Justass (talk) 00:05, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
Good catch, blocked him. --Martin H. (talk) 00:28, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
User:Tatoo-2010, self signed user talk page, Disney related celebrities --Justass (talk) 13:20, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
P.S. later contributions made it wp:Duck case --Justass (talk) 18:29, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

how can i vfd a fake pic of wikipedia?

this picture is an obvious fake (original pic is here). fake is there. Cliché Online (talk) 16:36, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

I can not see the image you say it is the original, HTTP 403 Forbidden for me. Also the supposably faked image is on en.wikipedia under fair use, so if your suspicion is based on copyrights I have no need and no means to correct it (of course "source Bundesarchiv" looks wrong to me and much to undetailed). The image is on en.wp as a copyrighted image for educational purposes only, such fair use is allowed over there on en.wp, its not allowed on Commons (Commons:Fair use). --Martin H. (talk) 16:41, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
what bugs me is not copyright matter but the fact that the picture itself is false. alter url for original pic, same pic hosted by imageshack . Cliché Online (talk) 16:49, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
You mean that the uniform is digitally added. Yes, thats a valid concern, you may start a deletion request at wikipedia, follow the instructions at en:Wikipedia:Files for deletion (3rd box), add {{ffd|log=2010 February 23}} and do the other steps. --Martin H. (talk) 16:53, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
thanks, yes that's not a real photography, the face was pasted on the body of someone else and background was painted in black. ok i'l vfd with this tag. Cliché Online (talk) 17:01, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

The University of West Alabama uploaded images

Hi Martin, Thank you for the information you provided me. I am new to the Commons area of Wikipedia. Can you please help me resolve this matter? For the images of Bibb Graves Hall and the 175th anniversary logo, can you please delete those from the Commons section? Regarding the University president image, I would like for that to be used. I need advice on how to put the licensing agreement on it. Please advise me. Thank you!

UWAFanatic05 (talk) 00:39, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Answer on your talk. --Martin H. (talk) 02:56, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
Martin, I thought we couldn't have big images on here. I was informed I should resize the images. Can you please explain to me the purpose of Wikimedia Commons? I'm confused by that and standard Wikipedia.UWAFanatic05 (talk) 03:32, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
Resize in the article of course, see the en:Wikipedia:Picture tutorial. The purpose of Commons is described in Commons:Project scope, Commons is a project to collect, organize and valuate free content media files, technically Commons works as a shared file repository of >700 Wikimedia projects including Wikipedia in >250 languages. --Martin H. (talk) 16:25, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

No entiendo

Se trata que con esa licencia se pueden subir fotos entre los años que indica, las foto de Holly son del '56 a '59. ¿Sabes contar?. Ahora porque si hay fotos de Marilyn Monroe, [20] [21] [22], las cuales usan la misma licencia que yo, ¿Porque me borras las mias? Además de las de Monroe, hay muchisimas con esa licencia. ¿Pero por que joraca te la agarras con migo? --Gelpgim22 (talk) 00:49, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Pero no entiendo, si yo ponia el autor, la fuente, la fecha y todo, igual me las borraste!, porque cual es la diferencia!?!? --Gelpgim22 (talk) 03:58, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

good for deletion

you can delete the picture [File:Lvf in russian front mg34.jpg] erroneously uploaded by me as PD because i've found it is actually still copyrighted by the Bundesarchive. as i told you i thought all WWII pictures of the bundesarchives were released in the PD since there were photographies of this era in wikicommons. Cliché Online (talk) 04:20, 24 February 2010 (UTC)


Hi Martin, I've sent you an email. --Ecemaml talk to me/habla conmigo 11:24, 24 February 2010 (UTC)



Vegg, its not me who is bad, its you acting here in a criminal way. --Martin H. (talk) 12:54, 24 February 2010 (UTC)


I think it should be to eliminate this picture.--Beat 768 (talk) 00:51, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Done. --Martin H. (talk) 17:02, 25 February 2010 (UTC)


Sent a permission email. Can you tell me the next step to get the photo approved?

--Jeb69 (talk) 05:58, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Already solved. --Martin H. (talk) 17:02, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

original family owned version is posted

sal — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk • contribs) 16:16, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Without an image name and without an username this information is useless. --Martin H. (talk) 17:02, 25 February 2010 (UTC)


I just sent a permission email. Is there anything else that I need to do? Thanks! --Jackedhacker (talk) 18:03, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Free image

This image is free and you delete in Image:Jan_Brewer_governor_of_Arizona.jpg . This image was used for a blog and then appeared in Google Images, but is free if it has been done by the Flickr user on that page, it is she also present in the original photo. Sorry if I wrote something wrong, not very good English habal. -- 21:01, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Well I can't speak for Martin, but taking a look at the source on Flickr, I'd say the person whose account it is, he's just taking photos from elsewhere and putting them up with a Creative Commons license. Of the 6 photos that are present on the account, 4 have what's called EXIF data which tells among other bits what camera was used to take the photo with. All four of the photos report a different camera being used: Nikon D200, Canon EOS 30D, Canon EOS Digital Rebel XSi and Canon EOS Digital Rebel XTi. Tabercil (talk) 23:08, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
Thats the flickr account of User:ThePlumber, he was so to say caught in the act flickrwashing. --Martin H. (talk) 00:02, 26 February 2010 (UTC)


Could you please check this user vs User:Mantrafilms, uploaded same cropped file few hours after deletion, but this time with source. But strange that on en wiki inserted "old good" one instead of this [23] --Justass (talk) 01:15, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

They are the same. However, File:MeetJoeFrancis.jpg washes my doubt away, this is not someone related to the subject but a simple fan with no idea of copyrights. --Martin H. (talk) 01:43, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Flickr check

Can you do me a favour and check the source page out for File:StacyKeiblerWikipic.jpg? It smells to me like Flickrwashing, but as I'm just about to head off to work and I don't have the time right now to do the needed digging myself. Tabercil (talk) 13:31, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

I already passed this in my NewFiles check. Yes, it is flickr washing, the flickr account might be the person/management or it is also possible that it is some impersonator. I dont know, Im still searching for the original to open a deletion request. --Martin H. (talk) 13:35, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
I tagged it as missing permission. Thats too fishy. --Martin H. (talk) 23:23, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Images from The Red Dress Collection 2010

Hi, Martin. I'm an IT contractor and was asked to update page. It's maintained by Ogilvy PR for the National Heart, Lung and Blood Institute. They provided me with the images. These images are also available (in lower resolution) on Flickr, under account maintained by Ogilvy. I created a sandbox under my own account, so they can review the edits before they posted to the actual Heart Truth page - How can I convey to you that images are used appropriately?

Regards, Andrei Fedotov

Of course not with invented sources purporting something is government work that is clearly not. You first transfered images from flickr, at the moment of transfer the license you selected here was not the license of the images on flickr. The images on flickr were not free for commercial reuse. If they are in the legal position to grant everyone to reuse the images for commercial purposes (means: they contracted the photographers or had the copyright transfered in a written contract, they not only bought licenses from some press agencies) they may change the license on flickr allowing for unrestricted commercial reuse and modification by everyone, perpetually in ever media. The flickr account I mean is 2009 images are already licensed free for commercial reuse and modification, starting from february 2010 imags are licensed non-free. --Martin H. (talk) 14:46, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
Martin, Sorry for starting another post on the same subject, but the original does not have the "edit" option. Everything is clear as far as using images from Flickr. However, I'd like to know what are our options besides Flickr? How can we communicate to you that we have rights to these images and post them to Commons under free-use license?
Thank you, Andrei.
You can upload images here that are freely licensed by the copyright holder - for example if a copyrigh holders publishes something on flickr under a free license, make sure that it is a free license and that the flickr user is the owner of rights. You can upload images here you created yourself or you have the full copyright. If you act on behalf of a company please dont only use your nickname but provide the copyright holders name as source, thats best practice from my expirience. Note, that the author field is the field commonly used as attribution. So if you upload something on behalf of a company and someone reuse it with the attribution line "(C)Afedot1" this will not be very sattisfying ;). If something was published before you have to fill the text {{OTRS-pending... to the permission field of the upload form. The exact text is written in the upload form for copy&paste. This indicates that you will forward a written permission to our COM:OTRS system. The site COM:OTRS (as well as Commons:Permission) describes the process. --Martin H. (talk) 16:20, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Photo License

Hello Martin,

I am a new Wikipedia user and apologize if my question may have been answered else where. I am responding to notification from you that pictures that I recently uploaded are missing license and category information. The pictures are Sounders_9.jpg, Rayner_In_Action.jpg, and In_Action.jpg (the last two are duplicates). These photos are all about a professional soccer player named Rayner (or Rayner Michael). The Sounders_9.jpg photograph was taken by the Seattle Sounders Football Club's photographer and given to Rayner with verbal permission. The other two were taken by a friend of Rayner and given to him with verbal permission. I am not sure how I can track these people down to obtain written permission from them and I am seeking your guidance. I would understand if this is not sufficient and the photos must be removed, but please let me know if you have any other ideas. Thank you for your time. 15:42, 26 February 2010 (UTC)~Dragos.axinte.9

Difficult. The copyright holders must agree to the license, not that he reuses the photos but that everyone can reuse the photo. Copyright transfer is only possible in written, so the photographers are still the copyright holders. Dont know if licensing is possible in verbal form but I think not. The seattle sounders photo must have written permission, they have a post and email adress, so no problem to contact. --Martin H. (talk) 16:37, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Another likely Xocolata copyvio image

I uploaded File:Sede_de_Iberia_en_Madrid.jpg, which was originally uploaded to EN by Xocolata. Now his images are found to be copyvio, and I think I found the original source of this image, so I nominated it for deletion. WhisperToMe (talk) 16:03, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

I think your right and not a loss, the building cant run away so making a photo would be possible for years. A mistake in the deletion request: from photobucket, not from flickr. --Martin H. (talk) 16:35, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
I fixed the request to say "photobucket"
I also contacted WikiProject Airlines on Wikipedia to see if anyone who has an account could contact the original author to see if he can grant permission for the photo. If they manage to get him to grant permission, that would be great. WhisperToMe (talk) 18:41, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Imagen Bandera Río Grande

Hola, Martín H! Estuve preguntando en el café por mi tema, pero me enviaron a las fuentes! Subí un archivo (File:Bandera-rio-grande.jpg), producto de un dibujo vectorial hecho en CorelDraw por mí. Está en la lista de borrados, motivo: Copyright violation... ¿Por qué? He subido otros archivos (mapas) también hechos por mí, y aún permanecen en Commons. Saludos! --Cari TDF (talk) 19:37, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

This was deleted allong with your other uploads because your uploads were nothing but copyright violations. Did you realy draw it entirely by yourself? --Martin H. (talk) 23:14, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
Ok. Cómo puedo comprobar que yo misma hice un dibujo vectorial? ...Ok, in English:

Hi, Martin H!... Sorry I uploaded images without proper license, but I did ignore that these photographs were not licensed, I'm not a criminal! Many say they have a license, now I'm learning a bit about that. How can I verify that I do vector drawings? send me an image (simple) and I climb the bitmap to Commons. (not possible to upload vectorials?). I'm making an effort to write in English. ... My English is basic (very basic). So I do not participate in Commons, and I will not do in the future. :-( I collaborate in Wikipedia, where "good faith is presumed". Here it not? I am very sorry. Greetings! --Cari TDF (talk) 00:43, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Good faith is also assumed here, but also good faith has an end. I'll restore your File:Bandera-rio-grande.jpg, it not really passes the threshold of originality. By the way: This image is not saved as a vector graphic, it is a lossy jpeg. Do not upload any more images you not created yourself or images the copyright holder not published under a free license in future please. --Martin H. (talk) 01:31, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
Thanks, Martin! few minutes ago I learned that I upload vector graphics! therefore, I loaded the flag of the famous Rio Grande :-) I hope no more mistakes. I'm only human! I upload a svg file that I made based on the map of Africa on your user page.
  • File:África.svg and File:África Salvaje.svg. Saludos desde Tierra del Fuego!--Cari TDF (talk) 03:03, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Imagem Professor Estumano

Olá Martin, a imagem postada é uma foto minha. Eu sou o professor André Altamir Estumano. Moro em Fortaleza, Ceará, Brasil. A foto foi feita por um amigo e eu forneço todos os direitos para quem a quiser usar. Se precisares de mais provas da minha identidade, é só me pedir por e-mail: --BotanyBRA (talk) 03:09, 27 February 2010 (UTC)


Ciao... scusa per le immagini, ma sono nuovo...volevo sapere... immagini fan art modificate tipo File:HollyPiperHaven.jpg...[24] quale licenza usare....o come funzione per fan art in generale... codici da usare nella licenza....scusa...sorry...I ask you help me....................

Thats a joke now, or? You can not upload it without written permission from the photographer of the original photo. You can simply not upload it. --Martin H. (talk) 15:23, 27 February 2010 (UTC)


Lieber Herr Martin.

Ich verstehe wirklich nicht was Sie gegen Timiriazova's Bild haben. Das Bild kommt von der Archiw der KGB (des Sowietischen Sicherheitsdienstes). Bilder die von Polizei oder anderen solchen Aemter kommen doch nicht unter das Copyright, da sie oeffentliche Dokumente sind. Es ist doch kein artistisches Lichtbild und der Polizeiphotograph kann kaum als ein Autor dieses Bildes gelten. Auch gibt es jetzt keine KGB und keine Sowiet Union - Russland kann nicht ein Erbe des Copyright dieses und anderer solcher Bilder sein, da so ein Copyright nie existierte. In der Diskussion des Bildes habe ich erwaehnt das es ein oeffentiliches Dokument ist. Sehen Sie Sich bitte die Photographie an: es ist offensichtlich eine Polizeiphotographie. Wenn noch andere Informationen noetig sind, wuerde ich Sie bitten mir zu schreiben, was Ihnen nicht gefaellt.Afil (talk) 22:54, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Das stimmt, mit Verweis auf Commons:Licensing#Russia and former Soviet Union, leider alles nicht. Öffentliche Dokumente sind nur Flaggen und Symbole des Staates sowie Gesetzestexte, Gerichtsurteile oder andere administrative oder legislative Texte. Ansonsten sind Werke gemeinfrei die von Autoren erstellt wurde die vor 1942 gestorben sind, ansonsten gilt nur Template:PD-old. Die Ausnahme das Werke die von der Regierung oder Regierungsorganisationen erstellt wurde (Template:PD-Russia) gemeinfrei sind ist auf Commons obsolet. --Martin H. (talk) 23:18, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
Leider falsch. Commons sagt nur das "Tag" sei obsolet, und zeigt welche neuen Gesetze fuer das Russische copyright gueltig sind. Diese Gesetze sagen das alle Regierung und Munizipale erstellten Dokumente seien nicht ein Objekt des copyrights. Der Text ist in dem Гражданский кодекс РФ от 18.12.2006 N 230-ФЗ - Часть 4
Kapitel 70. АВТОРСКОЕ ПРАВО stellt folgendes fest:
6. Не являются объектами авторских прав:
) официальные документы государственных органов и органов местного самоуправления муниципальных образований, в том числе законы, другие нормативные акты, судебные решения, иные материалы законодательного, административного и судебного характера, официальные документы международных организаций, а также их официальные переводы;
Ich kann wirklich nicht verstehen warum Sie nicht den Text eines Gesetzes annehmen, wenn die Commons sagt das dieses Gesetz gueltig ist. Das Russische Gesetz spricht von aemtlichen nicht oeffentlichen Dokumente und sagt nicht solche seien nur Flaggen und Symbole des Staates sowie Gesetzestexte, Gerichtsurteile oder andere administrative oder legislative Texte. Das Russische Gesetz sagt auch nicht das nur Gesetzestexte, Gerichtsurteile oder andere administrative oder legislative Texte oeffentliche Dokumente seien, sondern schliesst ALLE oeffentliche dokumente darunter auch saemtliche gesetzliche, administrative and forensische Texte ein. в том числе in Russisch muss als "darunter" nicht "naemlich" uebersetzt werden.
Der Englische Text in Commons zeigt nur das alte Russische Gesetz sei durch ein neues veraendert, ohne den Text des gueltigen Gesetzes zitieren. Ich habe Ihnen die Bestimmungen dieses Gesetzes gezeigt. Es gibt wirklich keinen Grund das Bild auszuloeschen. Afil (talk) 22:53, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
Kann es sein, dass deine Auslegung von Dokument etwas zu weit gefasst ist? Offizielle Dokumente sind gemeinfrei damit ein Urheberrecht nicht die Anwendung dieser Dokumente hindert, z.B. das Design von Münzen und Briefmarken, der Text des Gesetzes, etc., das trifft absolut nicht auf Fotos zu. Template:PD-RU-exempt sagt nichts von Fotos und entsprechend finden sich (mit Ausnahme zahlreicher Orden deren Design Gemeinfrei ist) keine Fotos in Category:PD-RU-exempt. --Martin H. (talk) 23:13, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
Erstens sollen wir vereinbaren das wir wesentlich vom Gesetz und nicht vom Template sprechen. Das Template muesste nichts anderes als das Russische Gesetz steten. Das Russische Gesetz spricht von Dokumenten (ein Lichtbild ist auch ein Dokument.) Eine Sicheheitsdienst Photographie ist ein administratives Dokument (oder Teil eines solchen Dokumentes da diese Photographien Teil der Dokumente die noetig waren wenn ein Strafgefangener frei gelassen war. Das sind doch aemtliche Dokumente die nicht ein Objekt des Copyrights sind. Es handelt sich nicht nur um die Anwendung der Dokumente sondern auch um die Rechte der Autoren. Ein Dokument (und das Russische Gesetz spricht auch von Musik und von Computerprogramme) ist offiziel wenn es keinen Autor gibt der Einspruch auf das Rech ueber dieses Dokument hat. Im Fall den wir besprechen, handelt es sich um eine Photographie. Wenn es ein Copyright gibt muessten wir auch wissen wem das Copyright gehoert - waere es nur um mir die Moeglichkeit zu geben den Besitzer des Rechtes zu finden und ihn um das Erlaubniss zu verlangen sein Werk zu benutzen. Glauben Sie der KGB Beamte der die Photographie aufnahm ein Recht ueber das Copyright zu haben?
Dar Russische Gesetz ist ganz Klar. Alle offiziellen Dokumente (und Photos sind auch ein Dokument, jedenfalls soweit es das Russische Gesetz betrifft) sunt frei vom Copyright. Es handelt sich nicht u eine weite oder enge Gefassung. Das ist der Begriff "Dokument" im ganzen Russischen Gesetz. Afil (talk) 23:48, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
Und eben das ist falsch und es gibt ausreichend Löschdiskussionen die das durchgekaut haben. Und auf verwaiste Werke müssen wir jetzt bitte nicht auch noch abdriften. --Martin H. (talk) 23:57, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
Was sie verwaiste Werke nennen weiss ich nicht. Ich habe Ihnen nur gezeigt was das Russische Gesetz sagt und das nach diesem Gesetz das Lichtbild nicht ein Objekt des Copyrights ist. Jedenfalls habe ich das Gefuehl das wir kaum eine Vereinbarung unserer Meinungen erreichen koennen. Loeschdiskussionen ueber din Interpretation des Russischen Gesetzes gibt es eigentlich nicht und andere Diskussionen koennen nicht fuer diesen Fall anwendbar sein.
Ich habe zwar in Russland und anderen Laenders der ehemaligen Sowiet Union gearbeitet und hatte auch die Gelegenheiten mit den Spezialisten des Justizministeriums im Entwurf Gesetze oder gesetzlicher Dokumente mitzuarbeiten. Aber ich bin kein Jurist und kein Spezialist der Copyrights und als Amerikaner ist mein Russisch noch schlechter als mein Deutsch. Sie haben auch nicht gesagt dass Ihr Russisch viel besser ist als meines. Est wird uns desshalb schwierig sein den Anderen zu ueberzeugen was im Gesetz eigentlich gemeint ist. In diesem Fall, scheinen wir nicht die selbe Meinung zu haben was ein offizielles Dokument in der russischen juristischen Fachsprache ist und ob Photographien als solches gelten. Jedenfalls wenn wir Einzelheiten eines fremden Gesetzes analysieren koennen Uebersetzungen nicht ein genaues Bild schildern. Desshalb wuerde es besser sein, die Meinung einer russischsprechenden Jurist zu haben um din Interpretation des Gesetzes genau zu verstehen. Ich schlage Ihnen desshalb vor einen Mitarbeiter der Russischen Wikipedia zu Fragen welche die korrekte Auslegung des Russischen Copyright Gesetzes ist.
Sie koennen natuerlich auch die Entscheidung nehmen das Bild auszuloeschen. Dar wuerde aber nicht ein Beweis sein dass Sie Recht haben. Afil (talk) 01:36, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

File:Elena Berkova.jpg

Hello, what was wrong with that file? It was uploaded from flickr to Russian Wikipedia (from unknown reasons just in low resolution) with correct license (cc-by) and correct author (Alexander Plushev), then it was copied to Ukrainian Wikipedia (still with correct author and license, but with Russian Wikipedia as a source), and yesterday it was moved to Commons. I have reuploaded original version in the highest possible resolution, is everything OK at the moment? — NickK (talk) 11:31, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

There was no original link to flickr, so I didnt know it was from flickr. The image source on ru.wp was deleted as a non-free file, see log. --Martin H. (talk) 12:06, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

User: Jofab

It appears that user Jofab has created another sock, this time as "Ka Ho"[25], and is back to uploading non-free images. Previous socks were Jofab08. Thanks! --nsaum75¡שיחת! 11:53, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Checked and blocked. --Martin H. (talk) 12:21, 28 February 2010 (UTC)


Hello. I saw that you eliminated this picture: File:Ryanair_ATR-42_EI-BXS.jpg. I know that I didn't take the photo, but the author of the picture told me by email that I can put it in Wikipedia and Wikimedia commnos, but with the condition of to put his name, and I did it. Why did you eliminate it? Thank you. --JonyTF (talk) 12:31, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

You wrote:
Does this fit to the basic requirements to provide a CORRECT source and to attribute the author?? No, its copyright infringement. Also you need permission for everyone to reuse the image everywhere freely for every purpose including commercial reuse. Permission for Wikipedia is by far not enough. If you have such a permission please forward it to COM:OTRS and dont upload images with false author claims! --Martin H. (talk) 12:35, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
So, if I put that this picture was taken by the author X, you don't eliminate it? --JonyTF (talk) 16:29, 1 March 2010 (UTC)


Why Why Why?? --BadMuroZ (talk) 15:40, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

The Flickr uploader is not the copyright holder of this image. --Martin H. (talk) 15:41, 28 February 2010 (UTC)


Hola, las imagenes que subí a mi artículo son mías, yo tomé las fotografías. Cuando subí la foto, marqué que es de mi propiedad y le di una licencia, como se solicitaba en el formulario. No entiendo qué debo hacer. Gracias.

--Ane wiki (talk) 15:23, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

St. Laurent images

Hi, I saw you tagged Image:Stlaurentnews.jpg and Image:Stlaurentresigns.jpg for deletion. You are correct, they are not pd, but Library and Archives Canada allows free use of Duncan Cameron pictures, see here. Hope you won't mind withdrawing the tags. Many thanks.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:51, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

They allow for reuse by everyone for every purpose including commercial reuse?? I doubt. They of course allow for private and educational reuse of every image they have (anyway the cant forbid it under fair use), but they not allow for commercial reuse. On that site they say: Copyright for photographs by Duncan Cameron belongs to the National Archives of Canada. See their copyright information --Martin H. (talk) 00:56, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
This says "no restrictions on use or reproduction".--Wehwalt (talk) 01:06, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
Have you read Template talk:LAC, the email still says the different with a special mentioning of modifications. --Martin H. (talk) 01:14, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
I have now. I am not sure that it is the same language at issue. And I'd really like to see the email they sent LAC. I wonder if I should email them myself.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:28, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
Im on the brink to do so simply asking what the copyright status of Duncan Cameron images is and if I can do with the images whatever I want under a proper attribution. I would prefer if someone with good english (or french) can do it. --Martin H. (talk) 01:32, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
I can do it. Frankly, I'm confused. I would take "no restrictions on use or reproduction" to mean what it says. But the letter from LAC, while I don't think it addresses this particular point, seems to hint otherwise. I'm not even sure that an answer of "no" from LAC would end the issue. If you send me your email, I will cc you on the email I send them and forward to you any response.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:38, 2 March 2010 (UTC)


I have noticed that you have removed a template from the images I have uploaded. The non-captioning of images within sports infoboxes for individual sportspersons is something that I am very much a champion of. I can understand where you may well come from on the angle that I am not the photographer. However the proliferation of redudant captions seems to be a problem area within the rugby league community, not really noticed its grip on other sporting communities. I am very flexible in the wording, ie mentioning that I am not the photographer and that it is conditional for the upload only, not the further upload itself. Many thanks for your attention to this matter.This deal is getting worse all the time. (talk) 02:36, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Thats a problem on Wikipedia, not on Commons. You are welcome to add a user template to images you created yourself, dont add user specific templates to files created by others (thats copyfraud) or to files you only modified under the terms of a cc license (overemphasis of one author, violation of the license). --Martin H. (talk) 11:56, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Dealing with a repeat offender

I'm not sure how exactly to handle this, but back in October 2009, you deleted a file posted by DariusBieber that was a copyright violation. The file was of a Goodman's Mouse Lemur. It looks like the photo has been put back up, and he's claiming authorship. (See: File:Goodman's_Mouse_Lemur.jpg) This image is all over the web, and I doubt he holds the copyright. What's the best way to handle this? – VisionHolder « talk » 21:47, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

I deleted it again, fortunately it wasnt in use in any article. --Martin H. (talk) 22:08, 2 March 2010 (UTC)