User talk:Pieter Kuiper/Archive2009

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to: navigation, search

Archives: 2008 | 2009 | 2010a| 2010b

Contents

Answered[edit]

Cheers, Ingolfson (talk) 13:35, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Should we try to sort sort the images by hand into the Category:Narrow gauge rail transport infrastructure? Since the contents seem to be jumbled up, I am not sure if it can be reverted as such. Ingolfson (talk) 13:39, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
I have started to do so, as it seems that "related changes" does not track the bot moves. Also, I am embarassed/chagrined, even if it MAY not have been my fault. Ingolfson (talk) 13:49, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
I have never dared to try bots... Most of the images should probably be sorted to Category:Narrow gauge railways by country. However, I am not a real railway enthousiast. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 14:03, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
Well, Siebot is controlled by admins only anyway, so me neither. Aparently, either I mistyped the request (can happen, I made a few) and then the changing admin didn't spot that - or the bot was incorrectly moving stuff. Anyway, I have moved all categories into their correct new place, and I am still going through the 70-odd moved pictures. Not what I was intending to do with my late evening, but I will have it licked soon, and some better categorisation to boot. Ingolfson (talk) 14:23, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Michigan Historical Site sign[edit]

Didn't realize the wording needed to be in the description - however I added it, if that is all it takes. I already had referenced and quoted it in the article on Pickle Barrle House. Would you like to then put in your vote on this matter. Thanks. --Doug Coldwell (talk) 00:43, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

It does not have to be in the description. What I was trying to say to the copyright fundamentalists is that they would not have worried about the text if it had been in the description of the image of the building. At least, I have never seen it happen, and there are certainly exemples of long descriptions taken from recent books. A vote by me would not matter - this kind of historical markers is getting deleted here all the time. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 08:30, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Latuff[edit]

I am also known here by my real name - DrorK is short for Dror Kamir, and I often use my full name on Wikimedia projects. I saw you rushed to add Latuff's drawing to the article about the current Gaza conflict on the English Wikipedia, and I see your persistance in defending this caricaturist, and I'm sorry, but I find it hard to believe that it is your concern to the freedom of speech or trying to promote pacifism. Drork (talk) 05:25, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I included File:Palestine by Latuff by Latuff2.jpg in en:December 2008 Gaza Strip airstrikes, when it did not have any images. So what? It is no reason for you to bring up my name again and again and again in Talk:Carlos Latuff#Categorization. Please refrain from your insinuations. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 10:35, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
So you are playing innocent now. The problem is that there are too many people here who are willing to cooperate with you. It is a pitty to see how you abuse their good faith. Drork (talk) 13:15, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
I now looked a bit more into this, and I found these accusations by the en:Stephen Roth Institute. SRI did not give links to Latuff's response, but I found something here, with links to his original drawing and to the falsification. It is the SRI that is abusing good faith. Such things are damaging to the credibility of anti-antisemitism organisations. You should complain with them. Your actions here are counterproductive. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 13:39, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
I am amazed by the amount of energy you put into protecting this guy and promoting him. I have nothing to do with the Stephen Roth Institution or with the Tel Aviv University, and I have no idea where they take their information from. I can only say that a person who draw swastikas attached to stars of David so many times, shouldn't be surprised when people mix the two in his drawings. I don't know why anyone would like to falsify an image by this guy, his authentic works are dreadful enough. Drork (talk) 14:27, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
Pieter is not protecting this guy, Pieter is protecting Commons. Multichill (talk) 17:54, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
Is that what you call protecting the Commons? Dear me, we are in a worse shape than I imagined. Drork (talk) 18:18, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
I just uploaded Latuff's cartoon that got the second prize in the Holocaust cartoon contest. I hope Drork will be pleased, because he is going on and on about it. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 18:28, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
You are just proving my point. You are here to promote antisemitic propaganda, and specifically this guy's work. You are abusing the Commons in the most obscene way possible. This is a disgrace, and you are probably taking my words as complement. I despise you. Drork (talk) 18:33, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
High time to bring this behaviour up at Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems#Drork. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 19:14, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
Be my guest. Drork (talk) 19:44, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Building interiors[edit]

Thanks. Assuming there is a solid consensus, is there any place we can get this codified more clearly, so I don't keep having to fight with an admin over it? - Jmabel ! talk 21:01, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

The best place would be COM:FOP#United States. The situation in the US may be similar to COM:FOP#Finland, where it even does not depend on the interior being public at all. The problem is that the German admin generalized the legal situation that he is familiar with. In Germany even state museums are now claiming copyright over interiors of palaces where architects and other artists have been dead for ages. I wonder for how long this image will survive here. And as if that were not bad enough, now there are controversial law proposals in Germany that would eliminate FOP completely. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 21:32, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Image:Framingham.png[edit]

Hi Pieter, Thank you for explaining UK Copyrights so well.

I joined Wikipedia in 2006, but this is the first image I have contributed.

I know what to expect now! --Mitch3000 (talk) 13:41, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

You are welcome. Uploading something to commons for the first time is rather difficult in general, and family pictures seem to be causing many problems. The real problem is legislation and the courts caring more about companies than about the common good. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 17:08, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Village pump question (Planck and Einstein image)[edit]

Not sure if it was the right place, but raised a deletion debate you took part in. See here. Carcharoth (Commons) (talk) 03:02, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Thank you very much. I have answered there, where I also added a pointer to my undeletion request at Commons:Undeletion requests/Current requests#Image:Max-Planck-und-Albert-Einstein.jpg. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 07:01, 13 January 2009 (UTC)


Commons-emblem-issue.svg File:Latuff nazi camp 2.gif has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

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


Afrikaans | العربية | বাংলা | Беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | Català | Čeština | Dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | Zazaki | Ελληνικά | English | Esperanto | Español | Eesti | فارسی | Suomi | Français | Galego | עברית | Magyar | Bahasa Indonesia | Íslenska | Italiano | 日本語 | 한국어 | Македонски | മലയാളം | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | Norsk nynorsk | Norsk bokmål | Occitan | Polski | Português | Português do Brasil | Română | Русский | Slovenčina | Slovenščina | Српски / srpski | Svenska | Türkçe | українська | Tiếng Việt | 中文 | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−

--Mbz1 (talk) 23:07, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Proposal to change allowable scope of userpage content[edit]

I have made a proposal to specify more clearly what is and what is not allowed on usepages. You have expressed interest in this issue, and you may wish to comment at Commons_talk:Project_scope/Pages,_galleries_and_categories#The use of userpages to advance personal political opinions. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 21:48, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, but I am rather neutral on this issue. I do not like flag-burning, -crossing, or -waving, but let people have some freedom of expression. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 21:54, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

File:Malin Akerman portrait.jpg[edit]

Pieter, I'm curious why you don't think this is a copyright violation? Does Cafe magazine license all of their professional photography creative commons? --David Shankbone (talk) 15:18, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

I saw other files from Café on Commons, the source was a Flickr account http://flickr.com/photos/magazinecafe/ and I thought it looked like a legitimate corporate photostream (only Café photos, many links to the magazine's site, plausible as a PR operation). However, concerns have also been raised on Swedish wikipedia, that all these photos could have been copied from http://www.cafe.se by just anybody. sv:User:Wanpe has written to the magazine, no answer yet. Probably I should have been more suspicious/careful than I was. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 15:32, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
It would be quite a boon for us if they do. Could you possibly contact them to ask if this is their intent? --David Shankbone (talk) 17:28, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
Any update on this? I wonder if that Flickr user is legitimate. --Apoc2400 (talk) 18:33, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
Yes, it is confirmed that Café is behind the Flickr account (correspondence in Swedish). They wrote that they would change the licence immediately to NC, but so far no changes have been made. So go ahead, I would say. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 18:42, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

George W. Bush Portrait[edit]

I might have uncovered something on the deletion. The image in question may actually have a free use copyright. The Smithsonian Institute's website, makes it sound as if all portraits in the gallery that the George Bush portrait is located in are free use for educational purposes per this. -Marcusmax (talk) 22:54, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately, that is not enough for Commons. This place requires free commercial use (for reasons that I have never understood). /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 23:04, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
Kind of what I thought, but being relatively new I wasn't sure. Anyway thanks, hope to work with you again. -Marcusmax (talk) 23:14, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
You might also want to look at this deletion it is similar to the bush one, it was not commissioned by the government of the united states. -Marcusmax(speak) 02:21, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Schäferhundar på tyska?[edit]

Nog borde väl "Category:Deutscher Schäferhund" namnändras till "Category:German shepherd dogs" med omdir från det tyska namnet, så man slipper vara flerspråking för att leta reda på den rätt viktiga kategorin med massor med trevliga bilder i? Något du kan fixa? Jag vågar mig inte på det tekniska. Bästa hälsningar as ever EmilEikS (talk) 01:04, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Hej Emil! Ja, det skulle man kunna tycka. Men man brukar inte tycka om omdirigeringar mellan kategorier här, det funkar inte så bra. Så då blir det krig mellan tyskar och anglosaxiska hundälskare här. Själv har jag ingenting med hundar, och det tekniska (med robotar) har jag aldrig gjort. Jag tror att man börjar med ett förslag till nytt namn på kategorisidan. User:Foroa kan sådant. Med bästa hälsningar, /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 06:44, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Inside Photos of Soviet Nuclear Plants[edit]

In the current deletion discussion of an RBMK image you mentioned to have made some photos of the inside of some soviet reactors yourself. Would you mind uploading some of them to Commons, even if you don't know for sure, which reactor these were? Maybe we can deduce this bit of information by comparing to non-free images available on the internet. Maybe some wikipedian chimes in, who has visited the same plant.---<(kmk)>- (talk) 20:15, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Ok, I will scan them. The photos that I have were of a research reactor near Leningrad. I was also in a reactor in Sverdlovsk, but of that visit I do not have photos of the interior. I do not remember if cameras were allowed or not, this was in 1990. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 20:22, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Funny[edit]

It's funny, now I can see how much you really care and the other user who voted "to keep" that image File:Jacivelasquez.JPG, maybe the uploader is your boyfriend, friend or some, it's comical, well honestly I don't care my images at all, as you know I can do the same with your images, but I'm not like that, good luck!. --Celestial (talk) 23:56, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

I do not think they were your images. And I wonder if User:Heraldicos and User:Elzodiacogriego (Celestial) are different persons. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 00:01, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
They are almost certainly not. Look what i found: in the spanish wiki the es:User:Elzodiacogriego has been blocked indefinitly for beeing a sock puppet of es:User:Heraldicos (see also es:Wikipedia:Solicitudes_de_verificación_de_usuarios#Evasi.C3.B3n_de_bloqueo_infinito). --Rotkraut (talk) 08:01, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
Commons:Requests for checkuser/Case/Heraldicos. Multichill (talk) 12:28, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
Thank you. I added two files uploaded by the Heraldicos-account to Commons:Deletion requests/File:ZDVirgo.png. Of his other contributions I am especially suspicious of this beautiful volcano. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 18:22, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for notified me about the image deletion, I really appreciate it, oh I see many users were blocked because of me, maybe because I am using internet service from a public place, and you're right, I did "strange thing" with another user, because I helped to the user Elzodiacogriego to move his discussion page content, he asked me about when I met him next to me, ....O.K let me explain you, I'm in a public library of my state and the internet is completely free, and we have many computers behind and next to me, and let me tell you that it's comical what's happening, not good for these users, it's just, I don't know. Maybe it's coincidence, you know?, but I wanna thank you again because you made my happy day.--Heraldicos (talk) 22:12, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
Oh something else, I want to tell you that you're doing a great job, I can see you really have passion with this MediaWiki proyect, I'm still remember when all this started in 2001, I guess all this will end at last or soon, and I hope you can find another passion, because people like me, we have a life out there, and all these behaviors are for me ironies, the same thing to the "administrators", it was the same with PHP forums administradors or moderators, time ago, it's weird, but we must know how enjoy our lives. Happy day!. --Heraldicos (talk) 22:34, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Railways[edit]

Hello Pieter Kuiper - I am sorry to bother you, but can I ask you your opinion on something before I go raring off and again butt heads with user User:ŠJů? Said user has just "Seecat"ed a number of categories like Category:Railways by country and subcats like Category:Railways in Germany. He has effectively "sneaked in" an inofficial move of the contents of these cats to "railway lines by country".

And that after he just recently fought pretty bitterly with me to keep pre-eminent such categories like "Heritage railways" when all I wanted to do was place a concept category above them! Inconsistent of him to now try to remove "railways" cats, but then I sometimes I do wonder whether he appreciates the distinctions between the terms fully. I have done my own mistakes, but at least mine were (mostly) with fully open-for-discussion move proposals and merge proposals rather than this way through the back door.

Now apart from the fact that I believe such changes should be discussed, I am also asking whether that is something that we should support at all. A "railway" could be either a company OR a railway line. A "railway line" is a much more specific thing. By moving all the companies categories into the subcategories, I think we are lumping things incorrectly.

Sorry if this constant wrangling is frustrating you as much as me. But I wasn't going to go off after ŠJů without sounding off others this time. Ingolfson (talk) 06:26, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

I am sorry, I have no opinion on the railway category structure, and I find it a bit difficult to see what has been done. But in general, it is better to propose a move or a category rename before executing the operation. And I myself am often in favour of leaving things as they are, because changing break the commonscat-links from wikipedias. There is so much other work to do, for example categorizing uncategorized images. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 06:55, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
Well, seecatting stuff to another cat breaks effective interwiki-links as well. I do agree with you that there is much to do, and I guess we leave everyone to what he prefers to do, as is the wiki way. Cheers, Ingolfson (talk) 07:05, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
By the way, I asked your opinion because you once complained to me about a (mistaken, fair call, my bad) change I had made to narrow gauge categories, I believe. Ingolfson (talk) 07:06, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
Yes I remembered the narrow gauge railways, and I realize that is why you asked me. But if no established hierarchical categories exist (like for biological species), it will be difficult to get a category schemes organized here. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 07:13, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
Hi Pieter. Well, a category scheme needs to be created then, with more or less grudging consensus of the participants, so all the back-and-forth can be laid to rest! You are invited to contribute here and on the category scheme page when created. Ingolfson (talk) 11:42, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Video Vakgemaal[edit]

Ik zag dat je de video wel aan de praat kreeg, terwijl ik zelf alleen de wijzer zag verschuiven. Ik heb nu ook de tweede video geupload, maar die heeft hetzelfde probleem. Ik heb ze beide omgezet van AVI naar OGG met VLC mediaspeler, maar vermoedelijk maak ik daar een fout mee. De vraag is wat wijsheid is. Ik maakte voor het eerst een video met mijn camera en bij het loslaten van de ontspanner gaat hij nog seconden door, dat wist ik niet. Nu de file binnen is, zou iemand de fout eruit kunnen halen en inkorten? Waar vraag ik dat, gewoon in de kroeg of elders? --Stunteltje (talk) 22:21, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Je kunt het in de kroeg proberen. Ik weet niet of er een speciale plek op commons is om hulp te krijgen met die oggs (waar ik dus zelf ook helemaal niets van weet). Maar dat was een duidelijk en verhelderend filmpje. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 22:39, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Photographs of identifiable people again[edit]

I have made some changes to Commons:Photographs of identifiable people/Proposal in response to a variety of helpful suggestions that users have made on the talk page. You have already commented there; could I ask you to have a look again, and to consider whether you would like to express an opinion in the Poll towards the bottom of the page? Many thanks. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 18:32, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I saw that the medical clauses are gone, and that is an improvement. That is good for the medical articles, articles about handicaps, etcetera. The "minors" cases are sometimes reasonable, often not (school classes, children at play). I find it difficult to say something systematic, and I will let others speak first. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 18:49, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Oilsands[edit]

Hello, Peter. Yes, there may be no copyright on facts, but from what I understood, it was not mere fact, but research and judgment that went into that graph. It certainly was not common knowledge. If someone more knowledgable about this particular facet of copyright feels I made a mistake, I will be happy to correct it. -- Avi (talk) 03:53, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

This was about Commons:Deletion requests/File:Pembina-oilsands.jpg. The simple histogram showed two numbers, certainly a product of research and judgment, but still those numbers are not copyrightable. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 23:21, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
As I said above; I'm more than happy to undelete if we can get an expert on the copyrightability of graphs and charts in a copyrighted publication to weigh in. If you look at the image, it is the SAME image, but with the blocks filled in by a new cover. The font and the kerning of the axes labels in the deleted image are identical with the one here. This was not, to the best of my knowledge, a reproduction of the original image, but a copy and overdraw of the original image, which was copyrighted. Can you see the deleted image? -- Avi (talk) 23:28, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
Also note, if you can see it, the same tiny overhangs of the border of the box, as opposed to a created image, which would likely use a proper rectangle. -- Avi (talk) 23:29, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
No, I cannot see it, but I remember. The figure was a very simple histogram. Indeed, the uploader was a bit lazy when he copied this. He should have redrawn the figure and made it an SVG, but it would have looked very similar to the source. Borderline case and no big deal, but commons keeps logos with more artwork in the design. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 23:36, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
Fair enough. As you say, a borderline case. I have no issue if you bring it up for undeletion and it is overturned. Thanks. -- Avi (talk) 23:39, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Steward election[edit]

I asked one of the current election managers and was told that I can put a message on my OWN page informing people of my candidacy, as well as it being OK to drop a line on project talk pages, which I have not done. may I ask your concern with notes on my OWN talk page, not anyone elses? -- Avi (talk) 23:11, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Your edit summaries show up in "recent changes". I did not like it, and I can vote as I want. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 23:13, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
Absolutely, you can. You are more then welcome to vote as you please, and why you please. Thank you for taking part in the process! As an aside, I note you have not responded to me vis-a-vis Oilsands. Do you concur? -- Avi (talk) 23:16, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Ignoring URAA[edit]

I would be delighted if this were the practice. Can you point me to any discussions/guidelines where this is the case? --skeezix1000 (talk) 19:27, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

I have not seen much discussion about it, but it seems horribly complicated, and some people make the strangest-sounding claims when referring to URAA copyright terms. One user requesting lots of deletions was Teofilo, and he got this reaction. I do not know much about it. It would be interesting if there exist interesting court decisions. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 19:58, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree with you completely that the interaction of U.S. and source country copyright laws is a complicated minefield. In my view, the fact that we are supposed to have regard to it actually hampers the Commons project and scares away contributors who don't want to become international copyright experts simply in order to upload a few historic images. I'm a lawyer (albeit not an intellectual property lawyer), and I find some of the legal issues that need to be considered extremely confusing. Moreover, when it comes to older media, some of the questions that theoretically need to be answered are usually impossible to answer because the details have been lost over time.

However, the URAA date is perhaps the one straightforward element of the U.S./source country copyright interaction issue. Was the image PD in the source country on the URAA date (January 1, 1996 for most countries)? If yes, then the image is PD in the U.S. (assuming one disregards any other esoteric copyright issues that might or might not apply). If no, then the image remains copyrighted in the U.S. unless the copyright has also expired in accordance with U.S. rules.

I'm not a deletionist. But the reason I think the URAA date is important is because URAA is the main question to answer when asking oneself if an image is also PD in the U.S. The other copyright issues are hard-to-answer (and often hard to understand and/or determine if they are applicable), but URAA is simple, it's black and white and it's a clear-cut threshold test.

If we completely ignore uploads of images that don't meet URAA on the basis that the interaction of U.S. and source country copyright laws is generally confusing, then I fear the damage down the road will be a lot worse than an occasional deletion today. Thousands of images that don't meet URAA will get uploaded. Wikipedia projects will use and rely on these images. Users, upon seeing that their earlier uploads didn't generate problems, will upload more images from the same era. If someday Wikimedia decides to better enforce the rule that an image must be PD in both the source country and the U.S. (and the trend over time on a whole range of copyright issues has been towards more stringent enforcement), I fear a lot more disruptive deletions down the road (a problem which could have been avoided, in part, had we been stricter about URAA today). I am particularly worried about the collection of Canadian historic images. The general rule of thumb for Canadian images (due to URAA) is pre-1946 good, 1946 and later bad. However, there are lots and lots of images out there from the late 40s and the 50s that are potentially PD in Canada, but not in the U.S. If we get a lot of these on the Commons, I worry that a group of editors or the foundation itself will look to solve that problem down the road. And it may generate a lot more scrutiny of pre-1946 Canadian images, for which some copyright questions would be impossible to answer (e.g. was an image "published" in accordance with the definitions of "published" that have been promulgated by U.S. courts over the years? Who knows.). In the end, we might end up with mass deletions of many post-1923 images, simply because we can't demonstrate compliance with some of the more obscure U.S. copyright rules. Ignoring relatively easy copyright rules just invites problems down the road on a wider range of copyright issues.

That's why I think we should generally comply with a basic threshold test like URAA. I'm not religious about it - I tend to ignore images that miss URAA by <4 or 5 years (let someone else fight that battle). Just my two cents. I don't follow these discussions very closely, though, so I haven't encountered some of the same strange URAA claims that you have - perhaps if I had, I would be a little more gun-shy about it.

Sorry, just realized how long my post is. Didn't mean to be so long-winded. --skeezix1000 (talk) 22:10, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your long answer. I am not a lawyer, but I under stand your point. In many cases URAA is indeed rather straightforward. For Sweden, one just needs to look if an image was free according to the 1994 Swedish copyright law, and that is it. So usually, I do not encounter problems. It is just the counterintuitive situations where a really old image is free in some source country, but supposedly not in the US. I see this has been discussed on the talk page of {{PD-Canada}}. Has anybody ever gone to court over an old image? Or is this just law that nobody cares about in practice?
One instance where I encountered URAA was in my undeletion request Commons:Undeletion requests/Current requests#Image:Max-Planck-und-Albert-Einstein.jpg (German photo from 1929). I think it does not make sense to invoke Urugay there, but it seems a waste of time as a layman trying to discuss such complicated matters with other laymen. It is not something an ordinary contributor wants to deal with. The unpredictibility of commons is a problem, and for a foreigner the outcome of American copyright law discussions feels rather unpredictable. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 22:40, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

No Thank you[edit]

Thank you, Pieter. Best wishes.--Mbz1 (talk) 23:01, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Edit warring[edit]

The edit warring regarding Latuff image categories is disruptive to Commons. I'd ask that you are careful not to contribute to this problem. I note that you have not exceeded the traditional 3RR but I am slightly concerned that 89.152.111.81 (talk · contribs) is probably a registered user on Commons. Whilst I am not suggesting that this is you, it should be obvious that others might suggest this and so avoiding reverting edits by others is probably wise to reduce the risk of coming under suspicion. Adambro (talk) 18:38, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

I think the overcategorization of the Latuff images is a problem. These cartoons are now dominating Category:Politics of the Palestinian territories, and I am trying to solve this by putting his work in separate categories, like Category:Cartoons by Latuff about Iraq. This might also be a solution to the edit warring about the Palestinian cartoons. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 18:43, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
This does sound like the best solution available to us because I think it not only should reduce some of the opposition to these images appearing in other categories, it serves to enable the Category:Carlos Latuff to be better organised. From talking with Mbz1 I think he considers this acceptable. I doubt Drork will be happy about it though since he seems to consider we are honouring Carlos Latuff by creating categories like this. Can't please everyone all the time though of course. Adambro (talk) 10:59, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
Timeshifter (talk · contribs) has recently created Category:Israeli-Palestinian conflict cartoons which seems an appropriate solution. Adambro (talk) 13:14, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
The irony is of course that the incessant campaign by Mbz1 and Drork only creates greater exposure for Latuff's cartoons. Disruption, floods or deletion requests, and edit warring about categories is one thing, but my complaint at Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems#Mbz1 (talk • contribs) concerns a more serious matter: why do not put administrators put an end to the libelous accusations and personal attacks? I am writing here under my own name, and they are doing damage to my reputation. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 15:18, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
Pieter I cannot do damage to your reputation. Only you yourself could and besides:
“Until you loose your reputation, you never realize what a burden it was or what freedom really is.” Margaret Mitchell quotes (American author of "gone with the wind", 1900-1949)--Mbz1 (talk) 16:52, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Your question regarding my comment at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Fighting Israel for dummies.png[edit]

Hi Pieter, you asked: Is AFBorchert saying that the en:For Dummies book covers are not eligible for copyright?. The simple answer is no, I didn't say that. I wrote: COM:DW is not a problem in this case as those parts that resemble the original titles are not eligible for copyright. The point is that the front cover figure with the pointed finger was not copied. Type faces and simple layouts like the black stripe over the yellow background are not eligible for copyright. Regards, AFBorchert (talk) 12:47, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

I understood that point (although I doubt that everybody would agree about the figure with the triangular face). But in a later response you wrote: "The Israeli flag is not eligible for copyright and this is quite similar to this case," and I was not quite certain about the point of comparison. It is a pity the deletion request was closed so soon. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 14:26, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

File:Dunkers kulturhus.jpg en File:Palm beach in Helsingborg.jpg[edit]

Hallo Pieter,

In december heb je deze twee afbeeldingen geupload en volgens het sjabloon zou er ook een ticket op OTRS over moeten zijn. Ik kan met zoekopdrachten in het systeem echter niks vinden, is het versturen van de toestemming gelukt? Heb je wel een antwoord van ons gehad, met een nummer misschien zelfs? Vriendelijke groet, Ciell (talk) 09:50, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Hallo Ciell, ik zie in mijn outbox de mail die ik fredag 12 dec 2008 16.08.22 GMT+01:00 naar permissions-commons@wikimedia.org gestuurd heb, maar een antwoord kan ik niet vinden. Ik had de mail geschreven in het Zweeds. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 10:11, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
Ah, dan kan het zijn dat hij naar de Zweedse rij verplaatst is. Was hij gewoon volgens de standaard Commons:E-mailsjablonen? Dan zou hij makkelijk af te handelen moeten zijn en snap ik niet waarom het zo lang duurt... Eens kijken of ik een Zweedse OTRS-er te pakken krijgen kan. Ciell (talk) 10:52, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
Nee, ik heb geen sjabloon gebruikt. Ik heb alleen de mail die ik van de gemeente Helsingborg gekregen had doorgestuurd in mijn mail. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 14:35, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
Er zijn geen berichten ouder dan drie dagen in de zweedse rij, ook in de commons queue kan ik hem dus niet vinden. Misschien nog eens proberen? Vriendelijke groet, Ciell (talk) 16:50, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Category:Järnvägar[edit]

Uhhh, what? Sorry, I don't talk Swedish, and haven't worked on that cat at all, to my knowledge. Cheers, Ingolfson (talk) 04:54, 8 March 2009 (UTC)


your cmt on Commons:Deletion requests/File:Varicela.jpg[edit]

@Pieter, could you eventually refrain from your cynically used out-of-context religious references,[1] I asked you already once. I quite regret now critizising Mbz1 on COM:AN/U for his personal attacks on you, will not take the pain again.--Túrelio (talk) 08:08, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, but it is always surprising what people will be offended by. I now took a different example, and I hope that I will not have offended Belgian sensitivities. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 10:13, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Note on FlickrLickr[edit]

I made an edit to your question on the change of license: [2] Once a Flickr Lickr image is uploaded to Commons, it is free...even if the flickr account holder later makes the flickr license more restrictive. Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 19:52, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

But Tryphon wrote that there was no proof of the license, that was what I did not quite understand. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 19:56, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment There was proof of copyright. FlickrLickr images WERE freely licensed when uploaded to Commons. See this comment by Admin Lupo here on 'Commons procedures.' But since there was no formal flickr review, Admin Nilfanion's Nilfabot mistakenly tagged it for a new unnecessary flickr review. Remember, bots are not as smart as a human Administrator or Trusted User. I've now corrected the mistake on that image here and asked the DR be closed as kept. Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 04:39, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Principles[edit]

Sure, specifically "Files that add nothing educationally distinct to the collection of images we already hold covering the same subject, especially if they are of poor or mediocre quality." Other than potentially defaming someone, what would this image add to the extensive repository of Latuff images we already have? -- Avi (talk) 07:56, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

The same section also has "files apparently created and/or uploaded for the purpose of vandalism or attack." Now while it may be argued as to whether or not the upload was meant to attack the person portrayed, the image itself certainly was. If that was the only image that Latuff ever drew, there may be some rationale for keeping it, but with tens of other images spanning many facets of Latuff's view of Americans, Israelis, Palestinians, and the geopolitical interactions between them, the necessary educational value of this image seemed lacking. Of course, you are more than welcome to open a case at COM:UNDEL should you feel I was in error. Thanks. -- Avi (talk) 08:06, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Your motivation for closing the Dershowitz DR was strange. The image was uploaded by en:User:Jaakobou, to illustrate en:Latuff, where exactly this image is discussed: "A cartoon by Latuff depicting Alan Dershowitz masturbating over the killing of Lebanese citizens, which illustrated an article by prominent anti-Zionist Norman Finkelstein, also provoked controversy.[22]" That one cannot replace with a different cartoon. Also COM:PS says that images used to illustrate hate groups etcetera "must be kept".
So I believe the deletion was against commons policy, second-guessing the enwp project. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 08:15, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
1) This is not used to "illustrate a hate group" 2) It does not add anything special to our understanding of Latuff that the other 20-some-odd pictures do. The arguments brought by commons experts such as Herby outweighed the keep arguments in my opinion. -- Avi (talk) 10:25, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
1) Jaakobou uploaded this image to illustrate how "hateful" (or whatever) Latuff is supposed to be, so this clearly is a case of something that COM:PS says that should be kept. 2) The enwp article is talking about an image that you did not want that article to show. I have restored it there. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 13:34, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
1) Jaakobu's potential error is not justification for a scope violation. What is under discussion now, with the re-opened DR, is whether or not this image is in scope. We delete images that were uploaded improperly, do we not? 2)The EnWiki article brings one sentence about the image; please see below as to the difference between EnWiki and Commons. The only way I can conceive of the image being used on EnWiki is if there is an article specifically about the image, not one sentence in the Dersh/Fink affair, and that would likely be deleted as a POV fork. As per below, Commons is not EnWiki and EnWiki is not Commons. -- Avi (talk) 14:08, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
Please see Commons:Undeletion requests/Current requests#File:Alan dershowitz by Latuff.jpg. Adambro (talk) 08:51, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Commons is NOT EnWiki; EnWiki is not Commons[edit]

Just a heads up re w:en:User_talk:Pieter_Kuiper#WP:BLP. Unlike the Commons, EnWiki has a policy protecting living people against harmful talk and images except for certain cases. This image violates the w:en:WP:BLP policy on EnWiki, and even if it is deemed in scope here (which is under current debate) EnWiki has its own policies. Just as we here in Commons expect that people from EnWiki respect our particular policies and guidelines (Commons is NOT EnWiki), the inverse holds as well (EnWiki is NOT Commons). Thank you. -- Avi (talk) 14:04, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Radering av bilder på commons[edit]

Jag har bett Lokal_profil att radera en lista av bilder jag lagt [3], men absolut no respons. Kan du ta bort dom? och hur går det med de bilder som ifrågasatts och kvarstår? Lidingo (talk) 17:39, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Jag kan inte radera något. Du kan lägga in {{speedy}} eller {{copyvio}} i bildfilen, med ett skäl eller med en url till vad det skulle vara upphovsintrång av. När det är bilder som någon själv laddat upp, brukar de raderas ganska snabbt, men det kan också hända att någon ändrar dem till en vanlig raderingsansökan. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 17:49, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

File:Ahmadinejad.jpg[edit]

I cannot tell, is he supposedly being fellated under the coat? If so, I will nominate that for deletion now. -- Avi (talk) 18:01, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

It was just another example of a political cartoon playing on sex issues. That is not uncommon, try googling "majesteitsschennis" (Dutch for en:Lèse-majesté. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 18:11, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Copyright[edit]

"Strange behaviour

Why are you erasing descriptions and categories of your images? As before Commons:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archives/Vandalism_3#User:Setdominguez. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 07:13, 27 February 2009 (UTC)"

That is because my images have copyright.

setdominguez 06:08, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Copyright C R Nyberg image, uploaded by User:Lidingö[edit]

Please find a comment on the CR_Nyberg_1920.jpg page Boberger (talk) 16:05, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Ok, Commons:Deletion requests/File:CR Nyberg 1920.jpg - fy fan för EU alltså :( /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 17:06, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Categorization of minerals[edit]

Bonjour, Désolé mais je ne parle hélas pas anglais.

J'essais de contribuer à la catégorie des minéraux et particulièrement des sulfures. Je fais des photos et je ne mettais en catégorie que le nom de l'espèce et : minéralogie. L'un d'entre vous m'a demander de rajouter Category:Chemistry, Category:Mineralogy, Category:Science, Category:Geology, Category:Sulfides (cas de la Carrolite).

Il semble que vous n’y soyez pas favorable mais qui dois-je suivre?

Bien Cordialement

D.Descouens — Preceding unsigned comment added by Archaeodontosaurus (talk • contribs) 07:44, 7 April 2009 (UTC) (UTC)

Bonjour, je me permets de prendre la suite de la conversation à la place de Pieter. Je vous invite à regarder les règles concernant la catégorisation des images, qui se trouvent ici en français. Brièvement, de ce que vous dites je pointerais deux règles : 1) les noms de catégories doivent être en anglais et 2) seules les catégories les plus "spécifiques" doivent être mentionnées. Par exemple, si vous importez une photo de géode, la catégorie devra être Category:Geodes (ah oui, les noms de catégorie sont au pluriel) mais pas Category:Mineralogy, parce que c'est une catégorie "parente". Voilà, je ne suis pas du tout un spécialiste en minéralogie et je n'ai pas regardé vos images de près, mais si vous voulez que j'y jette un coup d'oeil et que je vous donne des conseils sur "comment faire les choses bien" (en regard des règles de Commons), laissez-moi un message sur ma page de discussion ! À bientôt, --Eusebius (talk) 08:00, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
Merci Eusebius pour repondre. I can read French, but writing it is an effort nowadays. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 09:09, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
Alors, ça concerne cette edit. C'est un "bot" qui ajoute Category:Chemistry, Category:Mineralogy, Category:Science, Category:Geology, mais ça cause trop des images dans ces categories. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 09:19, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
Also, there were four images by Archaeodontosaurus of tetraedrite. I created category:Tetraedrite and collected them there together, so that they would be easier to find. You should not add the general categories again, as Eusebius explained. I reverted that. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 10:48, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

COM:UDEL#File:Pffffft.gif[edit]

Hi, if the case looks clear enough to you, would you please undelete, before the picture gets delinked everywhere? I won't do it since I've initiated the undeletion request. Thanks in advance. --Eusebius (talk) 10:47, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I do not have such powers (and I do not desire to have them). /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 10:49, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
Oh, ok, sorry! How happy you must be, I envy you :-) --Eusebius (talk) 12:47, 7 April 2009 (UTC)


Message tied up in Ribbon.jpg Hello, Pieter Kuiper. You have new messages at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Babypamper.jpg.
You may remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Asturianu | Беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | বাংলা | Català | Čeština | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | English | Español | Suomi | Français | Galego | हिन्दी | Magyar | Italiano | 日本語 | ქართული | Македонски | മലയാളം | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | Português | Română | Русский | Slovenščina | Svenska | Türkçe | +/−

Category:Lewis structures[edit]

Hello Pieter, is this category really necessary? We have so many Lewis structures. See also this discussion. --Hystrix (talk) 09:09, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I think Category:Lewis structures may help in finding figures. But my motivation was to categorize together those 3D-animations, that had lots of chemistry and physics categorizing on them. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 19:24, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Healing of a hand wound[edit]

Prachtige serie! Wutsje (talk) 21:03, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Dank je, maar dit zijn dus foto's van (de hand van?) User:Arria Belli - ik heb ze alleen wat beter georganiseerd, want soms zijn pagina's beter dan categorieën. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 21:19, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Ah, ik had in mijn enthousiasme niet eens gekeken wie ze had gemaakt. :-)   Maar je hebt onmiskenbaar gelijk: ze op deze manier bijeenbrengen vergroot de aanschouwelijkheid van het helingsproces aanzienlijk. Dit "stripverhaal" is echt een aanwinst. Wutsje (talk) 21:30, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Why remove Ristesson Category?[edit]

Ristesson Ent. which, as you know, is a division of the Southerly Clubs of Stockholm, would like to keep track of the images it scans and contributes here from its historical files by gathering them in a single category, much in the same way you very kindly helped us create our Southerly Clubs category last year. When you remove the category Ristesson from any of these image pages, you make this impossible for us. Will you please not do that? EmilEikS (talk) 23:17, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

You can keep track your uploads in many ways (automatically via your gallery). /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 23:24, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
There are uploads that are donations and there are uploads that are not. This is a valuable donation from the Ristesson research library. That's what the category is for. Please respect that, sir! EmilEikS (talk) 23:51, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
It is not a donation, it is just a scan of a PD photo. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 23:54, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
Any valuable photo which legally belongs to Public Domain and which anyone takes the time, trouble, expense and/or effort to acquire, prepare and upload here, from rare material in the uploader's ownership, is a donation. Of that I am 100% confident. People donate such things all the time and people like you usually appreciate it. EmilEikS (talk) 00:04, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
Yes, people do that all the time, without making a big fuss about it. That is appreciated. Categories are for helping users find images, not for the vanity of the uploaders. Some contributors add invisible categories for keeping track of their uploads. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 00:09, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
Who is making the fuss? And who contacted me and was so complimentary and started all the fuss in the first place last year, leading us to contribute about 400 more images than we had thought we would ever be able to. Because we felt well acclimatized. Thanks to you. When we (and Commons) have had all these tremendous compliments from all over about the category you created for us, your name has been right up there on our page with all our appreciation. It was put there with your written permission to do so. You started all this security we have felt by contacting me and offering to help create our template, only to start an earthquake under us today as if you were not even the same person. OK, invisible categories? I'm sorry I don't know how. EmilEikS (talk) 00:20, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
I do not know the details either, but there are directions at Category:User categories and Commons:User-specific galleries, templates and categories policy. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 00:29, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Your edit on KarlXIV.jpg[edit]

You reverted my edit because "there is an OTRS ticket". I tagged the image with {{no license}} because there is no licence at all. Even an OTRS permission is quite nice it does not say anything about under which licence I'm alloud to use the file (PD, CC-BY(-SA), GFDL, some NC or ND licence, ...). I and most of the other user are not member of the OTRS ticket service and are thereby not able to have a look at the licence. I revert your edit, because there is still no licencetemplate on the image's descriptionpage.
--D-Kuru (talk) 12:19, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Ok, I understand now. I am not an OTRS-person either, and I do not know what it says. This is one of the photos uploaded by the heirs of the photographer, his sons Torsten (User talk:Torgot) and User talk:Gotlin. I have written to him in Swedish on his talk page, and I also sent an email from my own account. He wrote that things had been solved, but since then more of his uploads have been deleted.
As for this particular image, it looks like pre-1969, so it could be {{PD-Sweden-photo}}, but Kurt Götlin would certainly have claimed that this was not a simple photograph. So I agree, the terms om which this was released by his heirs need to be specified. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 13:59, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Shoe image[edit]

Hello, Pieter, and thank you for that note. I too was a bit surprised to see that image re-uploaded. However, I followed the source link, and it is attributed to Edi Israel's website, IsraelnesPhotos, with Edi himself being the photographer. We have a standing permission for all of his images which may be found on the net at resolutions of 800x526 or smaller. I have contacted Mbz, and was told that this image (together with some others) were e-mailed directly by Edi so as to have no watermark. I will resize the image from 800x534 to 800x526 to remain in perfect lockstep with the permission, although the direct e-mail is an indication that Edi released this image even with a width of 534 pixels. I believe one or two of the other images are actually Edi's, and he is in the process of releasing them to us as well. Thank you for your vigilance and your concern. -- Avi (talk) 14:40, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Ok, that is a nice permission! And I would not worry about those few pixels. I restored the corrrect Flickr tag of the image from the old versions that you had restored, so that it now points to the correct image. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 15:06, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Urban's old images[edit]

Dear Pieter,

  • Before you vote to keep Urban's copy vio images, Please read my message here to you here Urban did not know that Non-Commercial or No-Derivatives flickr images are not acceptablr for Commons in 2005 and 2006. Urban is not like Mac9 who also uploaded images in 2005 or 2006 but knew what they meant. You cannot trust Urban's images. Imagine I had to get 8 of his copyvios licensed freely! If I did not know the flickr owner (Mary) and she saw the pictures here, she could have sued WikiCommons. Its people like Urban and Rojk who bring WikiCommons into disrepute.

Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 20:03, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

I check my watchlist... As to legal problems, use on commons is not commercial, so she could not have sued wikimedia. In fact, I have never quite understood why we do not accept such images (and please, do not try to explain). /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 20:16, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
I asked a Commons Admin once and they told me that the images must have Commercial free license because once they are on Commons, the Administrators cannot control how people use them...whether in a commercial publication (a book or website) or just for educational use. This is all about minimizing legal liability to the Wikimedia/Wikipedia Foundation. That is why they cannot use flickr images which have a 'Non-Commercial use' restriction. They could be sued if the pictures end up in a book or tourism web site. I have a flickr account and once a tourism company executive flickrmail me and said that since I license my images freely, they would use this image of UBC campus in Canada. I don't mind since I'm not a professional photographer but others might. Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 20:51, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
No, this is not the point. (I hope it is ok to add my 2 cents here.) There exists Wikimedia projects that accept fair use or NC images. To support only commercially usable images on Commons is a deliberate decision which is best understood when reading essays like this one. --AFBorchert (talk) 22:14, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
Yes, that seems to be the point. But I still do not understand the decision not to allow NC images. But there are many things I do not understand, and I am not going to worry about it. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 22:33, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Thanks AFBorchert. I know Wikipedia can use non-free image if there is a Fair use justification but I didn't know the precise reasons why Commercial images couldn't be used on WikiCommons...until now. --Leoboudv (talk) 00:26, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

PD-Old respektive PD-Sweden-photo[edit]

Hej Pieter!

Jag såg att Du ändrade licensen på bilden File:Håkansson, Julia - porträtt med signatur och dedikation.jpg från PD-Sweden-photo till PD-old. Så vitt jag kan se på beskrivningarna är ju båda licenserna tillämpliga på Aron Jonason då denne ju såväl dog före 1944 som varit död i mer än 70 år, men jag undrar ändå om inte PD-Sweden-old vore mer på sin plats just då det handlar om ett fotografi och denna licens uttryckligen avser just äldre svenska foton, medan jag upplever PD-Old-kategorin som mer applicerbar där upphovsmannen är en målare, tecknare, författare o s v? Detta eftersom upphovsrätten i de senare fallen och sedan längre tid tillbaka varit mer entydigt kopplad till upphovsmannens dödsår, medan reglerna för fotografier utgått från delvis andra, mer komplicerade parametrar (år för offentliggörande, verkshöjd m m). /FredrikT (talk) 08:00, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Just det, problemet med kraven om belägg för publikation. Men om man ser lagen 2 §, tycker jag att det här fotografiet har "gjorts tillgängligt för allmänheten" genom att "exemplar av verket bjuds ut till försäljning, uthyrning eller utlåning eller annars sprids till allmänheten". Det var i alla fall en representant av allmänheten som fick detta exemplat som en vänlig erinring av Julia Håkansson. Men det är förstås bara lekmanslagtolkning.
Som jag skrev här finns det problem med 1944-delen av {{PD-Sweden-photo}}. Lagen från 1994 ändrades året därpå. Efter anpassningen till EU-kraven har upphovsrätten återställts för de verk där skyddstiden redan hade gått ut. Det finns ingen skillnad längre mellan fotografier med verkshöjd och andra verk, och då tyckte jag att det var lika bra att använda PD-Old. Men om du vill återställa, eller lägga till PD-Sweden-photo som komplement/alternativ är det helt ok för min del. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 08:59, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

You're welcome[edit]

I'm sorry for any inconvenient. Cheers, KveD (talk) 23:41, 24 April 2009 (UTC)


derivatives of swedish FOP-images[edit]

Hi Pieter,
as you surely have more knowledge about copyright laws in Sweden than I, do you know whether Swedish law allows derivative works of (FOP-)images of still protected works of art (statues), such as was done in File:Froeding Josephson Strindberg.jpg ? --Túrelio (talk) 07:57, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, those statues are permanently displayed in the open, and anybody may produce postcards. This was debated in parliament not so many years ago, when some were lobbying for more protection of public art, but it did not get sufficient support. So also the montage is allowed (I do not really like it, it does not seem very encyclopedic). /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 08:07, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
Thanks. --Túrelio (talk) 08:09, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
For your information: Commons:Deletion requests/File:Eldh.JPG (that's another image). --Túrelio (talk) 08:41, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
See also here. --AFBorchert (talk) 08:45, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
That one is questionable, as it fails "outdoors". However, it is in a church, which until recently was a state church, and in Sweden popular opinion would feel that it was "allemansrätt". I have not heard of artists or of the Swedish church enforcing copyright for such works. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 08:52, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Your...[edit]

...tactful way of discussion surprised always anew! --High Contrast (talk) 15:20, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Your DR was incoherent to the point of being incomprehensible. Please do not waste other people's time. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 15:55, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Edit war[edit]

Hoi,

Ik wil jouw heel vriendelijk verzoeken geen editwar meer te houden. Een editwar is nooit de oplossing en je kan beter een admin benaderen voor een oplossing. Groetjes, Huib talk 11:38, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Waar heb je het over? /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 11:39, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Het hele gedoe met Drork. Het lijkt af en toe wel of jullie elkaar opzoeken... In elk geval is Drork geblokkeerd vanwege meerdere editwars voor 72 uur. Ik hoop echt straks niet meer mensen te hoeven blokkeren. Huib talk 11:57, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't like this. I think I reverted Drork once today. I understand that administrators want to appear to be evenhanded, but there is no reason to issue a warning against me. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 12:02, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Israeli Copy Right Law[edit]

I have noticed yuo have had some disputes in the past with regards to Israeli Copyright Law. I am an israeli attorney specializing in copyright law (I also assist the Wikimedia foundation and the Israeli chapter with issues arrising out of copyright law). If you have any questions I will be happy to assist you (if you will forgive my bad English). With regards to public domain, with regards to a work placed in the public domain is- derivative work is alowed. This inclueds buildings, statues and all "usefull objects" (יצירת אמנות שימושית) if it is installed permenantly in a public place. The Courts rulled that "permenantly" is checked according to the intention of the creator, thus an ice statue is installed permenantly in a public place even if it will melt within minutes (it is hot here), and a "one time exhibition" which will not be displayed elsewhere is also "permenent". (for example: File:PikiWiki Israel 2962 Art of Israel מיצב בחדר האוכל.jpg) Deror avi (talk) 08:52, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. The best place to discuss this particular image is Commons:Deletion requests/File:PikiWiki Israel 2962 Art of Israel מיצב בחדר האוכל.jpg. But for example the images in category:Wall painting in Israel and category:Murals in Israel could not be classified as "usefull objects". I think. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 09:01, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
In view of en:File:PP103.jpg where you claim to be the copyright holder of a photo of a Picasso, I have some doubts about how specialized you are in copyright law. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 09:34, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
If the Law gives a list, mostly, the last item on the list is a general term which includes all the previous item, thus "אמנות שימושית" includes in fact all the previous items.
Furthermore, the term is ment to broaden the term used in the previous 1911 Law. Dr. Sarah Presenti in her book "Copyright and Neighbouring Rights" uses the term "artistice craftsmenship" used in the 1911 Law - and states that this also includes any picture hanging in a museum (i.e. "an artisitic craftsmenship permenantly hung in a public place") (p. 934)- and from this I can say that derivative work of murals and frescos ia also allowed. (similar to Section 62 of the English Law). Deror avi (talk) 09:50, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
That is your interpretation of a phrase in a 1992 book; your quote does not say "painting hung in a public place". Your way of reading the 2007 law seems is surprising. I cannot see what sense it would make for the law to define "works of art" or "artistic works" (יציר אמנותית) as the equivalent of יצירת אמנות שימושית ("useful works of art", "applied art"). /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 10:25, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
Apparently you have not read the said book - see page 934 to the said book. Applied art included pictures hung in museums -whether paintings or drawings. According to the definition - "אמנות שימושית" useful art is "artistic art" - this is an addition to include useful art which would not be regularly deemed as art (as decided by the Supreme Court in 1985, 1989 and 1991) - for example arts and crafts such as a sign with just lettering, which otherwise would have been deemed as litterary art as defined by the law and not as artistic art - the expended defintion is ment to include such literary art (a different definition as also an artistic art. Deror avi (talk) 10:27, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

File:Phun cycloid.png may be deleted[edit]

català | čeština | Deutsch | English | español | suomi | français | magyar | 日本語 | македонски | Nederlands | português | português do Brasil | русский | slovenščina | +/−


The File:Phun cycloid.png which you uploaded has been tagged {{OTRS pending}} for more than 30 days. This tag indicates that an email setting out permission to use the file was sent to the OTRS team. Unfortunately, we cannot find any record that such an email has been received, and accordingly the file remains without permission. Unless the OTRS team receives evidence that permission has been granted within 15 days of today's date, the file will be deleted. If you have already sent the permission, please re-send it to "permissions-commons@wikimedia.org" now. At the same time, please leave a message at the OTRS noticeboard so that a volunteer can follow this up. Alternatively, you can contact an OTRS volunteer directly. HersfoldOTRSBot(talk) 20:22, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

File:Vibrating pendulum phun.png may be deleted[edit]

català | čeština | Deutsch | English | español | suomi | français | magyar | 日本語 | македонски | Nederlands | português | português do Brasil | русский | slovenščina | +/−


The File:Vibrating pendulum phun.png which you uploaded has been tagged {{OTRS pending}} for more than 30 days. This tag indicates that an email setting out permission to use the file was sent to the OTRS team. Unfortunately, we cannot find any record that such an email has been received, and accordingly the file remains without permission. Unless the OTRS team receives evidence that permission has been granted within 15 days of today's date, the file will be deleted. If you have already sent the permission, please re-send it to "permissions-commons@wikimedia.org" now. At the same time, please leave a message at the OTRS noticeboard so that a volunteer can follow this up. Alternatively, you can contact an OTRS volunteer directly. HersfoldOTRSBot(talk) 20:28, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Image delete[edit]

Hi Pieter. I saw that one of the picutre that i took and upload to the command has been deleted. Why? I havn't found a reason for the delete. --Itzike (talk) 08:05, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

The reason is given in the deletion request that you linked to. This was your photo of a photo of Kadima politicians, that was only temporarily there. It was deleted as a derivative work. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 08:19, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
You kidding with me? This is picutre that was took in public place, during the Election In Israel. This is not photo of commercial object or logo. this is picture that came to "express" event, the focus is not the politicians. And if you really want to discuss about that, as Kadima Party press team, i can guarantee that we don't have problem with that. but the picture was deleted less then 5 hours after the request, without any time for us to reply. sad. --Itzike (talk) 09:45, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
It was not me that closed the deletion request so soon, but this seems a very obvious copyright violation. This was a picture of an empty hall with a big election banner of a team of politicians, with Tzipi Livni in the lead. If you say that the Kadima party has no problems with that, you can ask them to release the rights by mailing the OTRS volunteers (but why not also ask them for the banner in high resolution?). If the release is good enough for commons standards, it will be undeleted. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 09:55, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
The banner was one time use, only for this screen. That the problem that i feel with your request and Abigor deletion. There are huge different between releasing every one of the pictures of the people there, but as a picture that was taken from the side - there is no problem, you can't crop and use Tzipi Livni from that picture, so also from the Party side and also from the side of the owner and citizen of Israel - I think that the decision and the all idea of how to interpret the law is mistaken.--Itzike (talk) 10:06, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

It is no use arguing with me, as I do not have the power to undelete. If you must, you can make an undeletion request here: Commons:Undeletion requests. But unless you offer much better arguments than what you have presented here, I do not expect it would be done. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 10:26, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

No need, Deror already did at Commons:Undeletion requests/Current requests#File:PikiWiki Israel 2219 Election 2009 night - Kadima_Party. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 10:30, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Question[edit]

You wrote "Well, if someone used this on the cover of a book, and the photographer/copyrightowner would send a bill, would you advise that person to pay up or would your counsel be to let it go to court?" My legal opinion (again - this is just my opinion, but should you be a paying customer I would reply) - the only copyright holder of the image is Itzik, and he released the rights. According to Law - the fact that the poster is in the picture does not make it breach of copyright according to two sections of the Law - both section 22 and as the poster was prepared just for the event and never used again - then also it is "usefull art permenently placed in a public place" and therefore FOP. So - in my opinion, a book cover is OK (provided of course that Itzik, wiki commons is credited, and the license of the image as stated in the book is CC. Deror avi (talk) 06:59, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

It seems that the copyright position of visual artists is relatively weak in Israel, although the wording of the law is not really different from other countries. It is a country without a collection agency for sculpture or graphic arts, difficult to know what is cause and what is effect there. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 15:30, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
FOP in Israel, in my opinion, is the most liberal in the world (lucky for us). The chapter is currently working to make things even more libral (we want to change legislation so all government work is PD as in the US and not protected for 50 years - as is the current status. As to music - the music writers are a stong association, and that is why the Law is more harsh with regards to music. On the other hand - the newspapers are very strong, and free speach and freedom to create art are very strong, and that is why FOP is very wide (allowing photographs to be taken). Deror avi (talk) 15:59, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
I still think it is only a matter of enforcement of copyright being very relaxed in Israel. Look at what happened to Dudu Geva; probably because some lawyer gave him the wrong advice. In Sweden we had a similar case, but when Disney threatened with legal action, the author of en:Arne Anka caved in. Newspapers may be powerful, but they have also an interest in protecting their own creative work by copyright. That is why there are often exemptions only for news reporting, but not for other commercial use. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 19:34, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
The Dudu Gevah case was a very complicated one - it was a question of how much his duck then called "Moby Duck" pictured in comic strips he wrote looked similar to Donald Duck. Nothing to do with FOP. In that case the Court discussed what is copyright in general (inter alia mentioning FOP), why is it importent and where is the line between it and free speach. The enforcement is not relaxed - it is the Law (which is, of course, based on its interpretation by the Court) that is relaxed. Copy right violations are treated severaly by the Courts (usually cases of texts being copied without permision) - and the fines are high. Deror avi (talk) 21:28, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

description in scandinavian language[edit]

Hi Pieter,
could you check the wording of File:Sondre Bøe.jpg to see whether this might be an attack image? Thanks. --Túrelio (talk) 10:29, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Your posting DR of works from Israel...[edit]

Hi Pieter,

I think you should stay away from the PikiWiki Israel project, at least for a while. At this point your DR of these works just exacerbate the tension between this project and Commons, and they don't help solve the issues which may exist. There is FOP in Israel, but the information available in Commons is incomplete. This will be completed by people knowing Israeli copyright law. Then we can review again some of the image with the complete legal information. Thanks, Yann (talk) 16:18, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Politics instead of copyright. Your decision to keep Commons:Deletion requests/File:PikiWiki Israel 1127 Art of Israel חג המחולות בקיבוץ דליה.jpg went even against the opinion of User:Deror avi, who claims to be specialized in Israeli copyright law. The Pikiwiki mentality of "not an inch" is not compatible with commons. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 16:22, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Category for Latuff cartoon[edit]

Please rationalise your purpose in adding category:Alan Dershowitz to File:Alan dershowitz by Latuff.jpg. The said category has only one file in it, and I hardly think it constructive or appropriate to have this cartoon next to it. This cartoon is a satirical portrayal of the subject and is not directly related to Dershowitz's real-world identity. Those seeking Latuff's material have a good enough category to look through in category:Carlos Latuff. —Anonymous DissidentTalk 10:50, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Category:Alan Dershowitz is supposed to give an overview of the holdings in commons that are related to Dershowitz. Dershowitz is the subject of this cartoon, he even discussed the cartoon in print. The rationale is COM:CAT. Latuff is just a source or creator category. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 10:53, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
Having this image in that category is inappropriate, and violates the board resolution on Biographies of Living Persons. Do not restore it. --Bastique demandez 16:52, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
Is that an order? /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 16:56, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Behavior bordering on stalking[edit]

You have a habit of following people around who disagree with you and making a point of disagreeing with them at every opportunity. Doing this to me only serves to emphasize what I was already aware of from complaints by others.

I suggest you not offer commentary about me, personally. Referring to my photographs, which are completely within scope, as "self-promotion" is not only patently false, it's close to incivility. --Bastique demandez 16:47, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Your accusation of stalking is ludicrous, I make comments at many deletion requests. You started talking about someone's self-promotion, without reason. I was not aware of your existence, untill you characterized deletion requests by me a "tendentious" etcetera. That is an interesting way of doing your job as a volunteer coordinator. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 16:54, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
You have an interesting way of mischaracterizing events. I suggest you cease. --Bastique demandez 17:10, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

I need a copyright lesson[edit]

Hi Pieter, could you please tell us what the US copyright status would be in this case if the file is considered PD in the UAE, and why? I am really not familiar with these aspects of US copyright law. Thanks in advance. --Eusebius (talk) 15:06, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

US copyright on foreign material is something I do not really understand, and I tend to disregard all URAA complications. If something is PD in the country of origin, I think that should be enough for commons. Yes, that would be a policy change. I also think commons should stop applying PD-Art for photographs that are protected in the country of origin. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 18:05, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
OK, nevermind! I also try not to have to deal with URAA stuff. About PD-art, I kind of like the position of the WMF, but I live in a country where I think they could win the related trial. --Eusebius (talk) 07:31, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Lauro: Tanks[edit]

Ok! I have read the document about licence and I am reading the docs about categories... If you find any mistake in my images (about categories and other things) wich I have not seen, I would like you improve it... And I have read about the commercial use of images...Ok... I will allow all my pictures in commons to be used with commercial goals... No problems. Tanks..

contribs blocked?[edit]

with respect; why do you have "contribs" blocked on your signature? Lx 121 (talk) 22:10, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

nvm, mine is too; when did that change? Lx 121 (talk) 22:11, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

What happened? I do not see anything. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 22:13, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
well i'm used to the siggy having links for userpage,talk, & contribs; but right now, niether your signature, nor mine, is showing a link for contribs? i thought you had it blocked, until i noticed mine wasn't showing either Lx 121 (talk) 23:49, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
I always had the standard sig, without adding links to contributions. So I did not notice any change. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 23:59, 6 July 2009 (UTC)


File source is not properly indicated: File:Feynman.jpg[edit]

العربية | asturianu | беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | català | čeština | dansk | Deutsch | Ελληνικά | English | español | euskara | فارسی | suomi | français | עברית | magyar | italiano | 日本語 | 한국어 | македонски | മലയാളം | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | norsk nynorsk | norsk bokmål | polski | português | português do Brasil | русский | slovenčina | slovenščina | svenska | Türkçe | Tiếng Việt | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−
Warning sign
This media was probably deleted.
A file that you have uploaded to Wikimedia Commons, File:Feynman.jpg, was missing information about where it comes from or who created it, which is needed to verify its copyright status. The file probably has been deleted. If you've got all required information, request undeletion providing this information and the link to the concerned file ([[:File:Feynman.jpg]]).

If you created the content yourself, enter {{own}} as the source. If you did not add a licensing template, you must add one. You may use, for example, {{self|GFDL|cc-by-sa-all}} or {{Cc-zero}} to release certain rights to your work.

If someone else created the content, or if it is based on someone else's work, the source should be the address to the web page where you found it, the name and ISBN of the book you scanned it from, or similar. You should also name the author, provide verifiable information to show that the content is in the public domain or has been published under a free license by its author, and add an appropriate template identifying the public domain or licensing status, if you have not already done so.

Please add the required information for this and other files you have uploaded before adding more files. If you need assistance, please ask at the help desk. Thank you!

Polarlys (talk) 15:24, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

File source is not properly indicated: File:Bethe.jpg[edit]

العربية | asturianu | беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | català | čeština | dansk | Deutsch | Ελληνικά | English | español | euskara | فارسی | suomi | français | עברית | magyar | italiano | 日本語 | 한국어 | македонски | മലയാളം | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | norsk nynorsk | norsk bokmål | polski | português | português do Brasil | русский | slovenčina | slovenščina | svenska | Türkçe | Tiếng Việt | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−
Warning sign
This media may be deleted.
A file that you have uploaded to Wikimedia Commons, File:Bethe.jpg, is missing information about where it comes from or who created it, which is needed to verify its copyright status. Please edit the file description and add the missing information, or the file may be deleted.

If you created the content yourself, enter {{own}} as the source. If you did not add a licensing template, you must add one. You may use, for example, {{self|GFDL|cc-by-sa-all}} or {{Cc-zero}} to release certain rights to your work.

If someone else created the content, or if it is based on someone else's work, the source should be the address to the web page where you found it, the name and ISBN of the book you scanned it from, or similar. You should also name the author, provide verifiable information to show that the content is in the public domain or has been published under a free license by its author, and add an appropriate template identifying the public domain or licensing status, if you have not already done so.

Please add the required information for this and other files you have uploaded before adding more files. If you need assistance, please ask at the help desk. Thank you!

Polarlys (talk) 15:24, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

File source is not properly indicated: File:Kastler.jpg[edit]

العربية | asturianu | беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | català | čeština | dansk | Deutsch | Ελληνικά | English | español | euskara | فارسی | suomi | français | עברית | magyar | italiano | 日本語 | 한국어 | македонски | മലയാളം | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | norsk nynorsk | norsk bokmål | polski | português | português do Brasil | русский | slovenčina | slovenščina | svenska | Türkçe | Tiếng Việt | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−
Warning sign
This media may be deleted.
A file that you have uploaded to Wikimedia Commons, File:Kastler.jpg, is missing information about where it comes from or who created it, which is needed to verify its copyright status. Please edit the file description and add the missing information, or the file may be deleted.

If you created the content yourself, enter {{own}} as the source. If you did not add a licensing template, you must add one. You may use, for example, {{self|GFDL|cc-by-sa-all}} or {{Cc-zero}} to release certain rights to your work.

If someone else created the content, or if it is based on someone else's work, the source should be the address to the web page where you found it, the name and ISBN of the book you scanned it from, or similar. You should also name the author, provide verifiable information to show that the content is in the public domain or has been published under a free license by its author, and add an appropriate template identifying the public domain or licensing status, if you have not already done so.

Please add the required information for this and other files you have uploaded before adding more files. If you need assistance, please ask at the help desk. Thank you!

Polarlys (talk) 15:24, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

(and all the others) --Polarlys (talk) 15:24, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:WhistlingSwanSign.jpg[edit]

I have replied to your deletion question at Commons:Deletion requests/File:WhistlingSwanSign.jpg.SriMesh | talk 04:34, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Please DO NOT make insults[edit]

I hardly call requesting a review of an image, to be wasting people time, in relation to recent events.

I expect an apology.

Sfan00 IMG (talk) 14:33, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Please consider the above partly withdrawn, I must have been in a particularly mood when I wrote it.

The reason I was seemingly asking for assistance or deletion of images I had moved over myself, was because some recent events had made me somewhat cautious, perhaps overly so..

As to asking for an apology, Perhaps it should be me apologising for 'having lost the plot'? Sfan00 IMG (talk) 19:11, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Ok. At first it was not clear to me that you were reporting your own transfers. When I saw that, I thought you should have said so, and I was a bit irritated at all these requests. But that is no real problem. Sorry if I sounded too irritated. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 19:51, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Keep vote[edit]

Hi Pieter. Do you reconsider your vote as there is now a correct version available? --Leyo 08:26, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Done. But there is science that is much worse - have a look at these. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 08:41, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
In order of drawing the attention of chemists/scientists to chemistry-related deletion requests, we list them on Commons:WikiProject Chemistry/Deletion requests. AFAIK there is no such page for physics. --Leyo 09:43, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
Thanks - I put that page on my watch list. In fact, most of Edguy99's contribution are about chemistry. I do not think his models are enlightening, and his hydrogen drawings are really wrong. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 10:38, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Friedrich Kellner[edit]

I appreciate your help with the photograph files that have been questioned by Teofilo. I have given explanations for them, and I assume he will accept them and remove the deletion status. I hope you can continue to watch these files until the status has been reverted back, as I am uncertain what else I can do in this matter. Again, thank you very much for your assistance. Scott --Rskellner (talk) 12:35, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

You are welcome. Teofilo is a bit of a copyright hawk, often proposing for deletion images that in theory still might be copyrighted. And if there is no opposition, administrators may delete them. Too many historic photographs are deleted here, which is a pity. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 18:08, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Re: Nestorius[edit]

I believe it is best to try a PD review on this one. It seems it is an old photo and the source claims it is public domain. Sv1xv (talk) 07:02, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

I changed the tag because PD-Art was completely wrong. Please start a discussion about the status of this photo at Commons talk:PD files. Sv1xv (talk) 07:13, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Stop[edit]

Hello,

Please stop calling me SterkeBak in your messages, yhe time I used that name is long gone and I don't need you for making sure that name will be found by google forever.

Cheers, Huib talk 19:03, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Note[edit]

Your forgot to sign here. PS: I know Sterke... is Abigor but since he changed his username, I usually call him Abigor to respect his decision. Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 20:10, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks - I signed that one now. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 20:12, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Category:Utility poles[edit]

Weet je zeker dat deze allemaal voor telefony zijn? Ik zie daar alleen foto's van elektrische distributie. Er is wel een onder Category:Telephone poles. --Stunteltje (talk) 19:04, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Nee, de meeste zijn elektriciteitskabels, vandaar dat ik er eerst category:Low-voltage overhead power lines aan toevoegde. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 19:10, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Resolution[edit]

Cause that was the only way to see what was on it, the thumbing did not work out as it had to. Lars Washington (talk) 11:27, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Problems with thumbnails (and wikimedia has a problem with .gif files) should not be solved this way. Instead, real thumbnails should be generated, rather than the complete image files. But when I look at the version history of File:Warforoil.gif; I think there is a problem on your computer or internet provider. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 11:44, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
The image should be uploaded as a PNG (as indicated by the box). --Leyo 14:07, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Delete[edit]

  • I know that, but I hope delete now.PK1913 (talk) 12:20, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

File:LDKHeadquarters.JPG[edit]

Could you look in at Commons:Deletion requests/File:LDKHeadquarters.JPG again? I'm not sure how best to proceed. Thanks. - Jmabel ! talk 21:47, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Admin was wrong but left the block for one day![edit]

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Lulu989

We showed proof that my friend is not a sockpuppet, so quit vandalizing the votes. GabrielVelasquez (talk) 20:11, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

You, sir, are to leave alone what others write. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 20:13, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

legal Opinion[edit]

I charge my clients $5000 for legal opinions in copyright Law. Do you want an opinion from me so it can be attributed to me? Deror avi (talk) 16:46, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

A good lawyer would be a bit more careful accusing an opponent of malice. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 16:49, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
a good lawyer can prove bad faith when he sees one. Deror avi (talk) 16:54, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

De-admin procedure[edit]

Sorry to bother you, but I was looking to begin a de-admin procedure since there seemed to be at least nominal public support for the idea, and a perusal of Wikipedia, as well as archives, suggest this is a long-standing problem. I can find Commons:Administrators/De-adminship which tries to explain the process, but doesn't provide any links. I dug up Commons:Requests and votes/Gryffindor (de-adminship), but other than that single example, it looks like there are no de-adminships; or are we to use Meta? I'd appreciate being pointed in the right direction. Sherurcij (talk) 12:17, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

The case of Gryffindor is the only case that I know of, and that was a bit unpleasant. I come from Swedish wikipeda, where adminship is limited to a year. Sometimes an admin does not get enough votes to get reelected, and on svwp that is not a terribly big deal. Here on commons, however, it seems that de-adminship is regarded as the equivalent of capital punishment. I think an administrator should lose his privileges when he/she does not care about trying to convince the community that his actions are right and just goes his own way, using the powers that were entrusted to him. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 13:12, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

FOP: Lebanon[edit]

Will you explain why FOP in Lebanon is not ok? The laws are clear, if the work is open to public, the publication of the media shall be permitted. --Banzoo (talk) 15:22, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

The key word is "media". Commons will only accept usage that is free for any purpose. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 15:26, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
Wikimedia is not a "media"?--Banzoo (talk) 19:19, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
No, I do not believe that wikimedia would be regarded as mass media. But that is not the only point. Commons will only allow files that can also be used by anybody else. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 19:21, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
Help me understanding, the laws in France are far more strict than the laws in Lebanon, yet we find in Commons a great amount of pictures that include architectural work in France. What is Commons policy exactly? --Banzoo (talk) 22:15, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
It is not clear, there is a difference between policy and practice, see for example Commons:Deletion requests/Images of Grande Arche. (I do not think the current policy is very good. The wikipedias do not need images that are free for commercial use.) /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 22:24, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

PD Question[edit]

Hi! You seem to have an understanding of the policy here so allow me to ask this: Is this papyrus picture eligible for uploading here as a PD 2 dimensional image? Thank you in advance! --Egmontaz talk 20:04, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Hi! yes, that would be fine on Commons according to {{PD-Art}}, even if it comes from a country where the photographer can claim copyright. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 20:14, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
Thank you! The file File:Η Παπαρήγα η καλή.jpg is a screenshot from a TV-program (One of the programs by Mitsikostas, who is the person in the image, pretending to be the greek politician Aleka Papariga, he does voice immitations) and 100% copyright violation! --Egmontaz talk 06:37, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for your answer; done, see Commons:Deletion requests/File:Η Παπαρήγα η καλή.jpg. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 07:08, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

tiff conversion[edit]

Hey, I'd be very grateful if you wouldn't mind doing that conversion. I can read up on how to do it next time but I'd be grateful in the interest of getting this onto the entry if you'd handle this first one. Many thanks for all your help with this. Much appreciated! MarmadukePercy (talk) 08:05, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Many thanks for that and enjoy your day. Best, MarmadukePercy (talk) 08:35, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
SpecialBarnstar.png The Special Barnstar
Thanks again for your speedy assistance! MarmadukePercy (talk) 23:36, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
Thank you very much! My first barnstar ever, and such a beautiful one! /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 23:39, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
You're most welcome and thank you again. As you can see, I'm sort of a techno-klutz, so the help of folks such as yourself is invaluable. Best, MarmadukePercy (talk) 23:47, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Rename[edit]

Hi again! Do you happen to know if is it possible to rename a file by a procedure other than uploading it again with the right name and then speedy the original. Thank you again! --Egmontaz talk 10:29, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes. This was recently enabled again (a few days ago), but for administrators only. So you can ask an admin, and it should be quite easy for them to do that for you. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 10:41, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
You can also add {{rename}} to the image page. --Leyo 12:19, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
Thank you both! --Egmontaz talk 17:43, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Administrador[edit]

Are you an Admin? Or have you been Admin in another wiki-project? I`m new here, need some orientation. Pola K.

No, I am not. So I do not have any admin buttons, but orientation I might be able to help with. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 09:41, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
What about requesting for adminship (on Commons or on sv-WP)? --Leyo 11:33, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Have you once been Admin? That would be enough, too. I have some special questions on Adminship. Pola

No, I cannot help you there. There is Category:Commons administrators, but many are not active. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 09:46, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Disputed[edit]

OK, sorry for that. I didn't know this tag. --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 11:45, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Deletion requests[edit]

Hi Pieter. Please believe that this is absolutely not meant to be rude or aggressive, but don't you think you'd enjoy taking a short break from the DRs? I have found you a little bitter about them recently, but maybe that's just an impression. Honestly, it's not an invitation to stop anything, I think you're doing a great job here and (I hope) you know I respect your work. Just wondering. --Eusebius (talk) 21:16, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

It is a complete mess. Camels are being swallowed, while people are straining gnats. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 21:22, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
Er... I'm afraid I might miss the cultural references... --Eusebius (talk) 21:27, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
©Jesus @ Matthew 23:23,24. There is an awfull lot of sculpture here that is not free. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 21:29, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
Didn't know that one. Noted. --Eusebius (talk) 21:32, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Old Tom Morris[edit]

Je hebt File:Houtrak 2009 Old Tom Morris.JPG voor verwijdering genomineerd, maar dit beeldje is geen 'recent sculpture'. Het wordt gebruikt als prijs voor een golfwedstrijd. Het werd na de prijsuitreiking even op het gras neergezet zodat wij als journalisten er een foto van konden maken. Ik zal volgende week aan Made in Scotland vragen waar ze het gekocht hebben.Pvt pauline (talk) 11:01, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Niet door mij genomineerd, maar ik was het er wel mee eens. Dit is dus een beeld van nl:Old Tom Morris. Misscien oud genoeg voor {{PD-Old}}, maar erg waarschijnlijk lijkt me dat nier. Je moet daarvoor weten wie het beeldje gemaakt heeft. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 12:07, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Tottenham Court Road stn Central mosaic.JPG[edit]

Closure of request? Eight days have passed. Thanks, Sunil060902 (talk) 13:19, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

I am not an admin, so I cannot close Commons:Deletion requests/File:Tottenham Court Road stn Central mosaic.JPG. Some DR's are open for several months. And I am not quite convinced this is similar to the hand-painted tiles. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 13:45, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
Bear in mind this is but a small section of nearly 1000 m2 of mosaics at the station, and that other photos in commons are also there and have not been tagged. Also that this a view of the station platform, part of the floor is visible at bottom right. How is copyright being violated? best, Sunil060902 (talk) 12:20, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

I deleted two webpages of text, that you had also copied to the DR. Please do not do that, we can read. Also, it is rather counterproductive if you want to get a DR closed quickly - the more text in a DR, the more likely an admin is to close a bunch of other ones instead. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 13:10, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Bay Area Sports Hall of Fame plaque deletions[edit]

At least I don't have to worry about uploading the rest now. ;) BrokenSphere 01:06, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Some older plaques may be ok, and they do not always need to be that old - there is {{PD-US-1978-89}}. But that requires that you do a search of the copyright records (they are online). /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 06:46, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Another tiff file[edit]

Hello again. I seem to be on a roll with these tiff files. I just uploaded my second, never having encountered these before. (This one is File:DudleyLeavittUtah.tiff ). I wonder if you might tell me, is there a central website or tool that I could use to convert this? You were kind enough to handle the last one for me. Many thanks for letting me know. Best regards, MarmadukePercy (talk) 06:56, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

I use a Macintosh computer, and the program GraphicCoverter. In the past. I have used the "CERN Conversion Service", but that one does not seem to be publicly accessible anymore. I believe that one can upload .tif files to flickr. After that, they will be available in .jpg format, so that is something you can easily try. It seems that their cross-platform "Uploadr" can also do the conversion - I have never tried that. Good luck! /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 08:15, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
Okay, thanks for letting me know. I also use a Mac. I think I will give the Flickr route a try as I've never uploaded any files there. Thanks! MarmadukePercy (talk) 19:10, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

File:BallonKathedrale01.JPG[edit]

Hello, I have nothing to prove to you. There are good arguments for keeping this image. I am suprised that you ask for deletion. Usually you take the opposite stand: keeping the image unless there are strong arguments for deletion. And please do not propose it for deletion, I would take this as disruptive. Regards, Yann (talk) 22:00, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

This sounds as if you do not have a good reason to keep this image. You closed Commons:Deletion requests/File:BallonKathedrale01.JPG with "FOP in Switzerland", but seems clear that it is difficult to get a balloon permantently situated. I will have a look at Swiss law. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 22:22, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
I don't see how it would be disruptive to nominate this image again; clearly COM:FOP#Switzerland does not apply (Il est licite de reproduire des oeuvres se trouvant à demeure sur une voie ou une place accessible au public), so there is ground to challenge this closing. If Pieter doesn't nominate it again, I will. Unless of course you can provide a more convincing argument for your decision. –Tryphon 10:11, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
ich dachte dies sei erledigt??? siehe [[4]] --Böhringer (talk) 19:10, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
Ja, aber das stimmt nicht, weil Luftballonen sich nicht "bleibend an oder auf allgemein zugänglichem Grund" befinden. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 19:18, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Getty image[edit]

On the now deleted talkpage of File:Enfant-ecole-unrwa.jpg you commented[5] (likely not visible for you), that "I do not see "Photographs by Getty Images" on the UN site". This claim (originally mine) can be found here (second image line). It's somewhat sad that the image had to be deleted (as I used it on Human suffering), but I had already feared that. --Túrelio (talk) 10:51, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Ok, thank you, I do remember. The photo was a bit too good to be free... /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 10:55, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Category talk:Gustav Vigeland[edit]

I actually hate this kind of deletions like this, but in consequence of Commons:Deletion requests/File:The Vigeland Monolith.jpg & Commons:Deletion requests/File:Vigeland Monolith.jpg I created that list. Everything ok with this? --Martin H. (talk) 13:44, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Without having checked every single one, I agree that such images will have to go. Unfortunately. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 14:08, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Copyright image[edit]

I am the owner of the copyright of image: File:Dimitrios-popart-woman-bluegreen-dots.jpg that you filed for deletion. So, I do not see what you are whining about. Same for the other image File:Dimitrios art Dots Painting 69.jpg — Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.7.55.1 (talk • contribs)

Are you Sycron? Are you Dimitrios? The file page of the popart woman claimed {{fair use}}. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 05:57, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Neue Wache[edit]

Hey Pieter! Any reason fo not including these images in the DR:


--Dschwen (talk) 16:35, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

I did not include them because I wanted to keep the discussion simple. In these ones, the statue is relatively small and/or seen from the back. In the Putin photo, the sculpture is important, but not the main subject. But now that I think about it, at least the first one should probably be deleted. Best regards, /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 16:43, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Deletion[edit]

Well, I restored the file before your complain :-)

However, it's pretty obvious. Spanish FOP is not so easy as just being permanently outside. An additional proviso in the law chapter states that FOP is relative and only applies when it does not prejudice "the legitimate interests of the author or adversely affecting the normal exploitation of the works to which they refer" [aka copyright]. Here it's obvious. Best regards --Ecemaml talk to me/habla conmigo 22:56, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

How could that be obvious? /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 22:59, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Re[edit]

the source is provided, it is an image from Flickr, look again at the image below. HaireDunya (talk) 13:35, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

There is no evidence that File:Ruh al-'Alam artworks.JPG was uploaded with permission by the artist. In fact, that seems quite unlikely. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 14:40, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Note[edit]

I apologise for any confusion. I remembered that you are very active in responding to DRs, so I invited the community to make a decision. Of course, the first person I recalled was you. Whether the Ripon image is kept or deleted is not a big deal to me. I am just trying to reduce the risk of legal problems to Commons. The captain is trying to contact the flickrowner here and I hope he achieves success here as he did in another DR recently.

And the next time I file a DR as I did here today, I will not mention you by name again. Thank You, --Leoboudv (talk) 09:20, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Deprecated License[edit]

Deutsch | English | Italiano | മലയാളം | Português | +/−


It has been found that Image:Oto delegation.jpg has a deprecated license tag. Please choose a new free license tag which describes the rights of the image correctly otherwise it will be deleted! Thanks for your consideration. This is an automatic message by Nikbot.--Filnik 16:57, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Deutsch | English | Italiano | മലയാളം | Português | +/−


It has been found that Image:Wolf necklace.jpg has a deprecated license tag. Please choose a new free license tag which describes the rights of the image correctly otherwise it will be deleted! Thanks for your consideration. This is an automatic message by Nikbot.--Filnik 17:02, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

File:RobertOppenheimer.jpg[edit]

Hi. The version you uploaded is actually not the same picture. Would you care to upload it under a new name? --Eusebius (talk) 19:35, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Ok, I thought it was the same, but now I also see differences. It is also subtly different from the other one in the category - maybe different shots from the same session? Ah, well, I will upload and revert. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 19:43, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
Thanks, not a big deal anyway, they're not so different. I just happened to notice it. --Eusebius (talk) 21:01, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Deprecated License[edit]

Deutsch | English | Italiano | മലയാളം | Português | +/−


It has been found that Image:RobertOppenheimer.jpg has a deprecated license tag. Please choose a new free license tag which describes the rights of the image correctly otherwise it will be deleted! Thanks for your consideration. This is an automatic message by Nikbot.--Filnik 20:01, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Request for expertise[edit]

Although it is not at all clear that the Vreeswijk photo is an artistic work according to Swedish standards, the photographer Jacob Forsell is known for taking these kinds of things to court, all the way up to the Supreme Court. He has lost some cases (not directly related to the 1969 limit). But Forsell has not protested so far. I would keep it.
Yes, free to use with attribution, but nothing about derivatives. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 07:43, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
Thanks. "but nothing about derivatives" - does that mean "no derivative"? --Túrelio (talk) 07:46, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
No, but commons insists on derivatives being explicitly allowed. Copyright holders are often reluctant to give such permissions because of concerns about personality rights. Derivatives were not forbidden (fria att användas - "free to use" is rather wide), in my opinion this should be free enough. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 07:52, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
Thanks. I've added the personality-tag. --Túrelio (talk) 07:55, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Deprecated License[edit]

Deutsch | English | Italiano | മലയാളം | Português | +/−


It has been found that Image:Apache bride.jpg has a deprecated license tag. Please choose a new free license tag which describes the rights of the image correctly otherwise it will be deleted! Thanks for your consideration. This is an automatic message by Nikbot.--Filnik 17:44, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Deutsch | English | Italiano | മലയാളം | Português | +/−


It has been found that Image:Davis4-2.JPG has a deprecated license tag. Please choose a new free license tag which describes the rights of the image correctly otherwise it will be deleted! Thanks for your consideration. This is an automatic message by Nikbot.--Filnik 19:40, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

File:Adel Kamel.jpg[edit]

I was hoping you might be able to help me sort out whether File:Adel Kamel.jpg shoudl be nominated for deletion. I ran across it because its only category, Category:Artist's illustrations, is clearly irrelevant, and the description is useless. (FWIW, a Google search didn't help sort out who this might be, or why he's notable, but since he's presumably Egyptian - not a place I know much about - I'll assume at least that much good faith on the part of the uploader.) But my real concern is a rights issue. The source link is dead. The specified author is an organization. The user has a history of having images deleted for rights problems. But I see that you successfully defended some of his images at Commons:Deletion requests/Images uploaded by user Raafat. Could I ask you to look into this? Thanks. - Jmabel ! talk 17:44, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

I fixed a category, but I am afraid that this one is difficult to keep. The PD-self does not seem correct, and this was probably not published before 1987. So only if the source site would have contained a free license, which does not seem likely. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 18:15, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Deprecated License[edit]

Deutsch | English | Italiano | മലയാളം | Português | +/−


It has been found that Image:POble Laguna.jpg has a deprecated license tag. Please choose a new free license tag which describes the rights of the image correctly otherwise it will be deleted! Thanks for your consideration. This is an automatic message by Nikbot.--Filnik 19:43, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Saudi images[edit]

Hi. We have no proof that the two images of Saudi royalty we are both editing have been published in Saudi Arabia, or wherever, first. We need to have a source if we are in any way going to find out. They might just as likely have been published in the UK (that were allies of the al-Saud famly at the time) or similar first, and in that case, would not be PD. FunkMonk (talk) 00:20, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Just a source will not help. If these portraits had been on the wall of uploader's home since forever, or in a book published in Saudi-Arabia in the 1960's, it still would not prove much. There seems to be some writing in Arabic on File:King Faisal of Saudi Arabia.jpg. Best assumption is {{PD-Saudi Arabia}}. It is difficult to imagine that someone else would own the copyright. But of course it would be very desirable to know the exact year. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 16:29, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
Best assumption, yes, but it's not up to us to assume anything. The uploader either provides a source, or the image is unsourced. FunkMonk (talk) 16:34, 25 October 2009 (UTC)


Pierre Falardeau Picture[edit]

This image is not from [6]. In fact Kinoquebec probably take this image from wikipedia. I have uploaded this picture before them, they probably used it when Pierre Falardeau died. This image come from a RRQ manifestation and there is no copyright for it. It is not the first time someone want to remove my pictures because it is on other website. But because website use my pitures, it does not mean they own the copyright. Don't remove this picture please, thank you. Patriote17 (:-D) 26 octobre 2009 à 13:00 (CEST)


Carlsberg (File:Carlsberg,_affiche_publicitaire.JPG)[edit]

Hello. I dont know much about wikicommons (neither about english, I apologize). I actually took this shot myself. Anyway could-you please tell me what "FOP" means? Thank-you. Palamède (talk) 09:14, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I should have linked to commons:Freedom of panorama#France; there is a wikipedia article in fr:Liberté de panorama. PS: You can write to me in French. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 09:24, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
Merci. L'article fr:Liberté de panorama porte sur les œuvres originales portant la marque de leur créateur. Mais le cas des affiches publicitaires n'est pas mentionné: je ne sais donc pas quoi en penser.Palamède (talk) 14:33, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
Je suis convaincu que File:Carlsberg, affiche publicitaire.JPG est un œuvre originale portant la marque de son créateur, même si on ne connait pas son nom. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 14:43, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

File:Llenado orbitales.png[edit]

Hi Pieter. Can you confirm the dispute? --Leyo 13:12, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree. I wrote on the talk page that it should be deleted. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 14:38, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Is this needed?[edit]

I must say I really don't see why this is necessary. Surely notifying the commons uploader is pointless because they just transferred the file from en.wiki, where the uploading user has made one contribution and not responded to a previous question about the image. Rambo's Revenge (en.wiki) 16:08, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

The {{delete}} template instructs you to notify the uploader. There is no good reason not to follow instructions. You also failed to list your DR in the daily log. That is why nobody acted on it. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 16:15, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
The second point is definitely a mistake on my part, and I apologise. However, for the first point, I really don't see the point in contacting someone who just transferred an image across projects. I remember deliberately looking at the en.wiki user and not contacting them, due to lack of previous response. It didn't cross my mind to contact the transferrer of the image, because isn't that a bit like contacting everyone who has ever edited the image page. I realise this is starting to sound a bit argumentative, and it is really not meant in that way, I am just trying to say that surely contacting the Commons uploader isn't always necessary. Rambo's Revenge (en.wiki) 16:32, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
But why omit the notification? The uploader is the most likely one to react to the DR. It is the person with an interest in the image. He or she may know more about the provanance or about the subject. Or he may agree with the DR. It just speeds up the process. And notification should be done automatically when you click the "delete" line in the left column.
I am now wading through the hundreds of incomlete DR's. Of course, sometimes notifying the uploader is utterly useless, like when it is a bot. And it is excellent that you had checked the original uploader on enwp. But I only looked at the "what links here" link. My reaction to your DR may not have been very helpful, but at least it was a first reaction. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 16:43, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
That is fair enough. I thought I'd nominated it with the Help:"Nominate for deletion" toolbox link, maybe popups were blocked or something. Anyway I am sorry you are having to wade through lots of old DRs, and I will endeavour not to make your job any trickier in future. Best, Rambo's Revenge (en.wiki) 16:50, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Dancer[edit]

Hi Pieter,
as I've realized from your many little notes, the deletion of this one "Burning Man" photo is a matter dear to your heart ;-). When the next rfd is filed, please drop me a note. Cheers. --Túrelio (talk) 16:38, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Done :) (Unlike the case with Bonnie, I can imagine the possibility of harm.) /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 16:51, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
And undone within an hour. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 20:52, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Somalian images[edit]

Hi, I was just hoping you could clarify (or I could?) about the Somalian images for deletion you recently voted on. They were shot by soldiers stationed in Somalia for "their own use as trophy photos" -- and were passed around the soldiers on-base. The CBC had no relation to the images in any fashion, other than the fact that they obtained the images from the soldiers when the scandal broke. Suggesting that the CBC publishing them in Canada would give the CBC the copyright is a fallacious argument, since any inherent copyright would have rested with Kyle Brown or the other soldiers who were holding the camera. If CNN or ABC obtains video footage (for example, CNN obtained the CCTV surveillance camera footage of the Fort Hood shootings this week), it does not give them copyright ownership on the footage. So naturally CBC does not have any copyright on these images, and the soldiers certainly never published the images in Canada...so we're left in a situation where X created the images in Country Y, then Corporation A obtained them and showed them to people in Country B. I would suggest the issue seems to be a bit more complicated than to suggest that because they were "published" in Canada by a news organisation - the fact they were not CREATED in Canada, nor by the news organisation, but created by soldiers as trophy images for themselves while in Somalia - makes the issue murky at best. Sherurcij (talk) 17:28, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree with you that the copyright probably does not really belong to the CBC; I did not write that either. But the authors were Canadian soldiers, and their work was first published in Canada. I do not know whether that was with or without the soldier's permission. If the CBC did not have permission, these works may need to be treated as unpublished - complicated. But whatever such details, {{PD-Somalia}} does not apply. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 20:42, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
Copyright is not dependent on publication though; so if we can say that copyright doesn't sit with the quasi-publisher (CBC) and it doesn't sit with the creator (Pte Brown), then it would seem there is no copyright on the images. The tag may be less than ideal, but short of creating a new tag, I'm not sure how to explain this - unless we used a PD-because template. Sherurcij (talk) 21:59, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
Default is that the author owns his work. It is his property. The general lawlessness in Somalia does not mean that the concept of property does not exist there. These images are not ours to give away. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 22:09, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
If I may interject for a moment, that screenshot of one man torturing another man to death was uploaded together with a series of other related images (1, 2, 3, 4), and all of these screenshots were taken from a Canadian Broadcasting Corporation (CBC) airing of a home video shot by one of the rogue soldiers in question. One of the images, in fact, still has the CBC logo on it. Moreover, the uploader (user Sherurcij above) has indicated that the footage these images were taken from was shot in Somalia, but he has been unable to prove that this video was first broadcast there as well. On the contrary, this detailed paper indicates that the footage first aired in Canada, where it caused a major scandal when publicly broadcast. This is significant because the screenshots fall under the Berne Convention, which stipulates that anything first published in Canada is protected under Canadian Copyright law, regardless of where the film they were taken from was initially shot. Some more experienced Commons users have written about this in greater detail here. Also, one of the images in question was uploaded with a needlessly racist filename (viz. "Somalia breaking arms and legs of niggers"), but nothing has been done about that either yet. Best regards, Middayexpress (talk) 03:42, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
I am not not an admin, so I cannot change filenames. Anyway, "breaking arms and legs of niggers" is the phrase uttered in those seconds of video. Regards, /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 07:08, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Pieter, you might provide a reason for the closure of Commons:Deletion requests/File:Wolverine orchestra 1924.jpg as you did in the other one. As had to be expected, these closures surfaced on COM:AN. --Túrelio (talk) 17:49, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Reagans kiss at Bethesda Hospital.jpg[edit]

I reopened this. For this photograph, published by UPI, there is little evidence that the photograph is an official white house photo (name of the photographer who once worked at the presidential office) as there is evidence that the image is not a white house photo (published by UPI; name of the photographer who was not and will not be an white house employee his whole live). Remember, that all press agencies, like UPI, have photographers at the white house, I underlined the word official. See e.g. File:Nancy_Reagan_in_inaugural_attire_1981.jpg, the photographer here was more clearly not an employee of the white house at the time he created the photograph but a photographer hired by UPI. Regretably I so far not found a biography Fitz-Patrick. --14:48, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

P.s.: You may remove this comment at any time, I just noted that with posting here more then the simple notification I started to continue the deletion discussion here. That was not intended, sorry. --Martin H. (talk) 14:50, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
No problem, I will reply at the DR. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 14:59, 11 November 2009 (UTC)


Voxel arrays without categories[edit]

Hello Peter Kuiper, a question to a physicist: what are the right categories for files like this File:2x2 Voxel Array with Projection to Right.svg - there are about 10 files, waiting for categories since 3. Oktober 2008 - best wishes Cholo Aleman (talk) 15:35, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Hi, I do not know much about these images (it seems to be an application in nuclear medicin), but the concept is more general. I created category:Voxels, and put it in some categories that may be suitable. Feel free to add and modify. Regards, /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 16:25, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
Thanks!! - in the next time I will try to understand, what a "Voxel" is.... (Geht doch nichts über jemanden, der Ahnung hat, würde man auf Deutsch sagen.)Cholo Aleman (talk) 18:35, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Commons:FOP[edit]

After making wrong changes and insisting about them, I was forced to report you to the administrators. ברוקולי (talk) 18:33, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. I will read it. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 18:35, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

editwar[edit]

Hi,

I'm very sorry to say, but I have blocked you for editwarring here on Commons, I hope you come back and discuss first before reverting.

Gr, 19:02, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Exactly what have I misdone? /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 19:04, 22 November 2009 (UTC)


Unblock request granted

This blocked user asked to be unblocked, and one or more administrators has reviewed and granted this request.

Request reason: "I have been cleaning up categories today. Amongst other things I cleaned out a bunch of overcategorized surfing images from category:Waves. However, User:Mbz1 feels that the specific category:Surfing in California is not enough. I tried to discuss, pointing her to COM:CAT, but she blanked File talk:Big wave breaking in Santa Cruz.jpg. Twice."

This template should be archived normally.

(Block log)
(unblock)
(Change local status for a global block)
(contribs)

Deutsch | English | español | suomi | français | हिन्दी | magyar | македонски | Plattdüütsch | português | русский | +/−

Symbol support vote.svg Support. I don't want to revert the block unilaterally, but I've left a message on Abigor's talk page, and voiced my support on COM:AN/U. I have to leave soon and won't have internet access until tomorrow morning, but I hope someone will unblock you before then. –Tryphon 20:27, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
✓ Done. –Tryphon 20:38, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
Thank you. It looks almost as if Huib/abigor had been waiting for a chance. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 21:20, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
But I am still blocked. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 22:00, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
That was an automatic follow-up block that hit the IP address you used immediately after the regular block. I have lifted it. Cheers, AFBorchert (talk) 22:09, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
Thank you! Now I can edit again. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 22:34, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Links to other wiki articles[edit]

Hi Pieter,

I think these links help people who have problems with English, because they get a link to the article in their language and they can find the category by full text search. The table is clearly inconvenient, but you can reduce this to in line text. But that's not a major issue to me. Cheers --Cwbm (commons) (talk) 19:26, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

I see that you collapsed the long table in Category:Earth's atmosphere, so that is a big improvement. But why does the full text search not check the language links? Probably because it does not make sense on other wikipedias. But on Commons it would be useful. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 19:43, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Undeletion request regarding User:Quahadi[edit]

FYI: Commons:Undeletion requests/Current requests#Selected images of User:Quahadi. Thanks. Wknight94 talk 03:44, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Removing of description[edit]

Dear Pieter, please don't remove descriptions. We're an multilingual project so we should have descriptions in a lot of lanuages. If you think the text part is getting to large you should change it to use {{Multilingual description}}. Thank you, Multichill (talk) 16:07, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Israel dispute[edit]

Hi Pieter,

I'm aware that there is a long-running dispute regarding Israeli copyright in which you appear to be involved. The dispute appears to be scattered over dozens of pages and as a result an uninvolved user cannot readily follow it. I personally consider myself uninvolved in this, and would like to help all people involved in this reach a resolution. I have no desire to act as an arbitrator or mediator, but I am attempting to help the broader community understand the dispute.

I have created a page in my user space in an attempt to list any discussions relevant to the dispute. I'd appreciate it if you would help by adding discussions that you consider relevant to that page. I'd also be grateful if you could notify other people involved if I have not done so already. Thanks.--Nilfanion (talk) 14:45, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for looking into this matter. And it is not really very difficult at all. I will write something. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 14:48, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

For your info, added a table to that page to try and show how the 2 viewpoints differ on specific images. Help there would be appreciated.--Nilfanion (talk) 12:47, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

STOP IT[edit]

@Pieter, please stop personally attacking Herby! "Mental stability" is something alltogether very different than "balance". Being myself not an english-native speaker, I need not to lecture you that a decision may be balanced or nor, and a person may be able to make balanced decisions in one area, but eventually not in another area. IMHO, that is a totally legitimate way of discussion, contrary to questioning the "mental stability" of somebody. I would rather recommend you to apologize to Herby. --Túrelio (talk) 15:47, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

If Herby wants to question closures, he can reopen those DR's. But he is questioning my balance in a discussion that is not about me anyway. A totally gratuitous attack. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 15:53, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

If you again unwarrantedly remove the comments of others, as you did here, you will be blocked. ++Lar: t/c 16:12, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Please explain what that attack on me had to do with Borchert. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 16:14, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
It wasn't an attack, but more importantly I'm not going to debate this with you. You're on notice. Do not do it again, and in general do not edit war or argue disruptively. ++Lar: t/c 16:21, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
Have you warned Mbz1 yet about unwarranted removal of comments? /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 17:05, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
Warned??? Don't you know I was blocked for that? I believe you should have known better. After all you were blocked together with me for the very same thing :)--Mbz1 (talk) 18:23, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
After your block had been lifted, you blanked the page again. With impunity. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 18:48, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
I agree with your statement. As you know I've already said that, if I am to get blocked for doing that it would be fair. Of course after your block was lifted you were involved in few edit warrings yourself :) I will not provide the links, but you know what I am talking about, don't you. Anyway I would not like to talk about myself (if I am warned, blocked, banned, I deserve it), but I believe you should say that you are sorry to Herby. He did not say anything to you to get such a reaction. You misunderstood his comment because of the differences in cultures and in languages (could happen to anybody), but now, when you know what he really meant, I believe it is a time to say that you are sorry. It will do you good. BTW I would like to thank you for not reporting me to AN/U for leaving messages at your talk page and even responding it. After all I am banned from talking to you :) Remember?--Mbz1 (talk) 19:11, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Hee Pieter, lijkt me een geval van miscommunicatie. Herby wilde je niet aanvallen, maar alleen aangeven dat je wellicht niet geheel neutraal bent in het gehele Israel plaatjes verhaal. Multichill (talk) 16:25, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Zelfs als dat zo zou zijn (maar hij had eerst al geschreven dat ik "daft" was), was het volkomen off-topic onder het kopje Borchert. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 17:05, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
Bear in mind I never used the word "daft", I questioned the balance of your judgement on some matters in that I see you as biased. I think you will find it was you calling my mental state into account actually. --Herby talk thyme 20:36, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
You said "plain daft" here. I staid mellow. You then questioned the balance of my judgement (in a discussion about someone else). I made clear that I regarded that as an attack on my character, and removed your comment. I was annoyed, but removing off-topic bait is de-escalating. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 20:52, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
Edit warring is "plain daft" to me. It is not something I have done or would do. There are so many better things to do occupying time with constructive work.
I do question your judgement - I see you as biased and frequently aggressive.
Your posting here for example seems to show either a complete lack of understanding of project scope (making the closure of DRs very worrying) or was intended to irritate Mbz1 who you were warring with and so was an attack. It seem clear to me that it is one or the other of those. --Herby talk thyme 13:47, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
So you thought you saw an edit war on File:Big wave breaking in Santa Cruz.jpg. Probably because Mbz1 had solicited your help in her attempts to keep her image in high-level categories. You supported that rather strange image for Featured status, and then you denounced me on the user-problems board. Instead of just telling her not to keep deleting my comments on the image talk page. I think that shows poor judgment. As well as agressivity. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 00:08, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
I didn't think I saw an edit war - I did see one. They are pointless & I see Mbz1 has apologies on my talk page for her part.
I think we must agree that we find each other unpleasant and aggressive. However I would prefer to deal with your apparent lack of understanding of Commons scope as stated on that FP page. Several others have pointed out that is within scope (and indeed in use), you didn't tag it for deletion (& you are someone who does put files in for deletion when you believe you are right), you had worked on other similar files at the same time (surfers on waves). So again did you believe this (& all the others) were out of scope? If so you should not go near closing deletion requests with that lack of understanding I'm afraid.
The alternative is that you did it to provoke Mbz1 (or that both are true).
I look forward to your response as I certainly think this matter should return to the admin board in due course. --Herby talk thyme 14:26, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
  • @ Kuiper. I would like to ask you few true/false statements please.
  1. you were a part of edit warring as well as I was.
  2. I was blocked as a result of Herby's report on AN/U
  3. Herby said no single word in my defence after I was blocked.
  4. your block was lifted 10 hours before mine was.
  5. Herby said no single word in my defence after your block was lifted, and I was still blocked.
  6. Herby is voting on FP regularly, and sometimes nominates his own images.
  7. My "strange image" was supported by 5 other users, but Herby and myself.
  8. At least for the last few years you have not voted on FP at all, except opposing 2 of my nominations during our edit war.
If you are to answer "true" on all the above statements, I would like to ask you to be... no, not more balanced, I know you do not like the word :), but just more reasonable please.
IMO it is very important to be fair most of all to one own actions. I hope you would agree with that. Ane one more point please: Whatever I say about you, whatever Herby says about you, whatever anybody says about you cannot destroy your reputation. One's reputation could be destroyed only by one's own actions and one's own words.Thanks.--Mbz1 (talk) 14:32, 30 November 2009 (UTC)


@ both of you: I think this confirms that Mbz1 had appealed for Herby's help. And that in response Herby denounced me to the user-problem board. By that time I had given up on reverting Mbz1's blanking of pages. I had considered contacting someone else, but decided not to. Instead I looked at the FP-board, where I had noticed that some of these wave-images were up for evaluation. When one puts up one's work on this board, one should be prepared for criticism. A proposal like Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:A pond with reflection in Golden Gate Park 2.jpg is beyond comprehension - maybe it was a magical moment for the photographer, but for someone who was not there this does not deserve an award. The other nomination Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:A surfer in the air.jpg is a strange photo, needs a lot of explanation to understand what is going on, and is not terribly educational. It was in use, because Mbz1 had included it in en:Surfing. In my opinion, which I can express without needing to nominate the image for deletion, it was not educational. Like a lot of stuff on Commons.
It should be possible to respond with "not good" to FP nominations without causing a lot of dialogue. My vote is not a kneejerk reaction to authorship Mbz1. For example today, I did this categorization]. It is an image that I find very original and memorable. And also very illustrative, of several phenomena. So this is not personal on my part. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 16:03, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
I am not in touch with Mbz1 I assure you (& would prefer discuss this without any emotional interventions).
I understand that you do not see the image as being valid as a featured one, that was not my concern or my question.
You stated very specifically (and wrongly) that it was outside the scope of this project, Your personal views of what is and is not educational is not relevant to this - again - do you consider this image to be outside the scope of this project? If so I must ask the community to review your closures of DRs at the very least and request that you do no more for now.
The scope of this project is a very basic tenet of Commons - if you understand it fine - but then your comment was intended to irritate or annoy Mbz1 (another matter). --Herby talk thyme 16:18, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
You praised the photo as: "This is action photography of a sport." As is clear now after Mbz1 adjusted the description, File:A surfer in the air.jpg is a photo of an unintentional fall. Did you know that when you voted? As also Cesco77 wrote, a fall is not a good moment for showing surfing. It is a blooper. Maybe commons has photos of people falling off bicycles or of unsuccessful dives from the high board in swimming pools, but their educational value seems rather far-fetched. Please go ahead, review my closures, you will find them listed at User:DRBot/non-admin. I think only one was reverted until now (Reagan in the hospital). /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 16:37, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
You continue to skate around my question.
A good moment or not in surfing, it is something that happens to all surfers at some time. Surfing is an established internationally recognised sport. Images of sporting accidents would quite definitely be within the educational scope of this project. Your personal opinion of images is not the point here - the scope of the project and your understanding of it is.
If you believed it out of scope why did you not tag it as such? --Herby talk thyme 16:49, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
I am obviously rather more knowledgeable about surfing than you are. Yes I was well aware of what the image was about. While it often happens it is extremely hard to catch on camera - hence my vote. --Herby talk thyme 16:53, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
Well, many voters did not realize this. I could not understand the situation in the photo. And if people cannot see what a photo is about, it is not educational, and out of scope. Commons has hundreds of thousands of such images. One cannot even think of tagging them. I usuually only tag as out of scope manifestly false or misleading images. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 16:57, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
The fact that you didn't realize what the image was about suggests to me that you were not the best person to assess it either for a featured picture, nor far more importantly, as to whether it was within scope.
Personally I avoid things where my knowledge is inadequate and I would strongly suggest that you do the same.
I am left with the firm impression that your knowledge of this project's scope is very hazy in some areas (and you should avoid them).
I am also left with the impression - given your lack of knowledge, the edit warring that was under way and the history between you and Mbz1 - that you were intending to provoke with your edit.
Examining the last 2500 of your edits in Commons: namespace and filtering for Featured picture contributions this image of Mbz1 is the only one you have contributed to. I am clear about this now and will reflect on it. --Herby talk thyme 17:14, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
Yes, please do something with your superior insights in the project's scope. Please vote in open DR's, especially the old ones, the ones that no admin seems to feel confident enough to act on. Or weigh in on COM:UNDEL where an admin deleted 300+ images as out of scope. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 17:22, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

One of your more patronising and aggressive comments I think. I stated clearly I avoid areas where my help would not be constructive. I ceased to be an admin here some time back. Unfortunately I do not have the time at present to deal with such and I do have strong views on inactivity in admins. Whether I return when my current pressures ease will depend on just how unpleasant I find the atmosphere here.

As usual you avoid my queries so I must assume you agree with my comments - one sole interest in FP without knowledge and with the intention of annoying others - hence the attack on me . For now my objectives on Commons are quite limited. --Herby talk thyme 17:34, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Well, I deplore that it has been necessary for you the last three days to spend all you commons-time on the unpleasant task of trying to admonish and correct me. But if you wish to avoid areas where your help is not felt to be the most constructive, I must advise you to reflect on whether your good efforts would not be more benificial somewhere else. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 22:45, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

I had hoped that a period of reflection might have led you to an apology in this case however I see that has not happened. That is another respect in which we differ as I apologise when I get things wrong. I have posted my conclusion as seen above here. I would ask you to be a little more thoughtful in your editing in a collaborative project in future. --Herby talk thyme 11:20, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

And have YOU apologized for using an illegally distributed private email ? Or should I remember you on this incident until your and my death? (plus 70 years of course) Mutter Erde 92.227.3.116 11:39, 2 December 2009 (UTC) PS @ Pieter: Please check your nl-account. Mutter Erde 92.227.3.116 11:39, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
I have said it many times Mutter and will say it again now. I have never distributed any private mails from you although I still keep your last one just in case. --Herby talk thyme 11:47, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Hope you do not mind[edit]

me correcting your link here to the current version of my comment. If you do mind, please feel free to undo my edit.--Mbz1 (talk) 21:22, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

It does not seem to make any difference. But thank you for letting me know. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 21:26, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

File:Temple VI Foundry Mark.JPG[edit]

You remove the copyvio tag from this image saying it is not a sculpture. Actually it is a close up shot of the sculpture Temple VI, as described in the image description. Would you like to review your decision to remove the copyvio notice? Thanks Ww2censor (talk) 04:51, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

It is a foundry mark. I do not see any copyright infringement in the image. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 06:57, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Aerial picture[edit]

I saw your name on one of the picture I uploaded in Commons. I am not sure it's about the autorisation of such picture. On my demand I received the picture from the municipal administation so I think they woulnd't send it if there was a problem. If I am on the wrong address with this remark I apology loki11

Hi! Sorry, but you forgot to say what image this is about. And you have so many uploads that I cannot easily find it. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 16:35, 7 December 2009 (UTC)


Your deletion request for File:Ash Head No1 Zhang Huan.jpg[edit]

Hello Pieter, can you explain your deletion request? I do not get your point. Commons:Deletion requests/File:Ash Head No1 Zhang Huan.jpg Best regards --Neozoon (talk) 00:36, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

File talk:Israel Peled.JPG[edit]

I had talk with David, and there is a small problem with this photo. It's legit, but it will take some time to get a formal permission. You can delete the file, and we will restore the original file at the he.wiki. Please do not remove the file from the he.wiki article. Thanks. Gridge (talk) 18:07, 9 December 2009 (UTC).

Don't worry, I am anyway under orders not to nominate files from Israel for deletion. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 18:12, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
I beg your pardon...? Gridge (talk) 18:22, 9 December 2009 (UTC).
I was exaggerating a bit :), but see Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems#Proposal: Ban User:Pieter Kuiper from nominating images from Israel for deletion on grounds of FOP. Regards, /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 18:25, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
Pardon me for the interruption, but why delete a legit image? David Shay will never lie about such things. Let him get the written proof for the sake of clarity and transparency, but there is no need to delete an image which is clearly legit. Drork (talk) 18:55, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
Send permission first. Then upload. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 18:58, 9 December 2009 (UTC)


File:Cardon Héloïse.jpg[edit]

Bonjour Pieter Kuiper, I received your message and pay attention to it. This picture is from myself and I did not know by the time I put it on ligne how to do better. I still don't know how to behave with your demand. What can I do ? Thank for your answering. --Amb3a (talk) 11:32, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Bonjour. I do not think there is much that you can do. As I wrote on File talk:Cardon Héloïse.jpg (which will also be deleted): "The point is that you do not have the copyright on the sculpture. According to French law, the sculptor could sue for copyright infringement if someone sold postcards of this photo. See COM:FOP#France. "
The only thing would be to request permission by the estate of Maurice Cardon. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 12:57, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

File:Helsingborg color 1897.jpg[edit]

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


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

This message was added automatically by Filbot, if you need some help about it, ask its master (Filnik) or go to the Commons:Help desk. --Filnik 12:10, 14 December 2009 (UTC)


File:Jokkmokk church 1860.jpg[edit]

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


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

This message was added automatically by Filbot, if you need some help about it, ask its master (Filnik) or go to the Commons:Help desk. --Filnik 12:38, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Well, also before the template doesn't stated the copyright, too general. I approve Multichill's edit and the images tagged need to be fixed. --Filnik\b[Rr]ock\b!? 13:03, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

BTW about copyright[edit]

Hi, I'd like to ask please, if it ever came to your mind, that the author of the cartoon you uploaded to "please Drork" might not have the rights to release it in public domain? The thing is that this cartoon was published in Iranian's newspaper, and the creator was paid for it. Thanks.--Mbz1 (talk) 14:36, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

No, that did not occur to me. What makes you think that Latuff would have abdicated all rights? Maybe you know details about the terms for submitting an entry to the cartoon competition? Did you maybe submit something yourself? /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 14:52, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
Few weeks ago my article was published in England. Of course I retain my copyrights, but my contract allows me to share pdf copy of it only with 5 people. I believe it is an usual practice, when a work is published. It is for a publisher to decide how, and if to release it. BTW why in the world you posted that cartoon to your talk page? We both know what we are talking about, so in case you did not do it to "please me", maybe you please could delete it from that post? Thanks.--Mbz1 (talk) 15:02, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
That is not general practice. Ephemeral publications like newspapers do not need exclusive licenses of unlimited duration, so they are not paying the price for such licenses - it would be an unnecessary expense. Some talent hunts and competitions make such demands, but it almost guarantees that professional artists will not participate. (I added the image so that others can see what you alluded to.) /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 15:22, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
Refactoring File:Latuff nazi camp 2.png for Pieter (people can just as easily click to see the image. Please respect the individual's request to not have her signature associated with Nazi Death camps. Bastique demandez 19:11, 17 December 2009 (UTC)