User talk:Ronn

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to: navigation, search
Geachte heer Ron 
 Heb Bert Kiewiet persoonlijk goed gekend.
 Voor het beeld de museun bezoekers hebben mijn vrouw en ik met een vriend van ons model 
 gestaan .
 Het beeld is niet meer in zijn originele staat. Het raamwerk was oorspronkelijk ook van brons
 maar door vernielingingen vervangen door een metalen frame .
 Tot mijn verbazing zie ik nu dat het beeld nog maar uit 2 personen bestaat. 
 De persoon die naast mijn vrouw staat is de heer Jan Niks uit Emmen en dus niet Kiewiet zelf.
 Bert vond de been houding van mijn vrouw apart .
 Heb diverse groot formaat zwart-wit foto's van het model staan voor dit beeld en kranten 
 artikelen .
 Ben in het bezit van 2 beelden van hem .
 
 Met vriendelijke groet 
 
 Willem Kuiper    wilkuip@ya.com

archery.org/FITA images[edit]

Please stop uploading these images claiming they are free to use. Copyright note: © All photographs within this site are protected under International rights of reproduction law: © FITA and photographers. All rights reserved. Images may be downloaded for the purpose of viewing only. The images may not be reproduced, distributed or republished electronically or in print without a written permission from the author. --Denniss (talk) 23:46, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Please read the information on the FITA site: The pictures are free of charge and can be used with the condition that you state the source (by courtesy FITA/photographers). Ronn (talk) 11:33, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
May I ask where FITA license their photos under a Creative Commons license? Regards, Thuresson (talk) 12:46, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
I'm not quite sure about all the different types of licenses. I choose the license which I thought was the most appropriate regarding "can be used with the condition that you state the source" (as stated on the FITA site, see above). Ronn (talk) 17:40, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
Since the FITA page does not explicitly say that the images are released under a Creative commons license I suggest you either remove the CC license from the images here on Commons and replace them with "The pictures are free of charge and can be used with the condition that you state the source (by courtesy FITA/photographers)" or (better) that you contact FITA and ask if they would be willing to release the images under a CC license and that thet say so on their web page so we can link to it. --Bensin (talk) 19:19, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Image Tagging Image:Ruban.jpg[edit]

Беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | Català | Česky | Dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | Ελληνικά | English | Español | فارسی | Suomi | Français | Galego | עברית | Magyar | Հայերեն | Italiano | 日本語 | 한국어 | Lietuvių | Македонски | മലയാളം | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | Norsk bokmål | Polski | Português | Română | Русский | Slovenščina | Svenska | Türkçe | Українська | اردو | Tiếng Việt | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−

Warning sign
This media may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:Ruban.jpg. This image is missing permission information. A source is given, but there is no proof that the author or copyright holder agreed to license the file under the given license. Please provide a link to an appropriate webpage with license information, or send an email with copy of a written permission to OTRS (permissions-commons@wikimedia.org).

Unless the permission information is given, the image may be speedy deleted after seven days. Thank you. Ahonc (talk) 18:21, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

I provided a link. Ronn (talk) 19:39, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Deletion request Jos Lussenburg[edit]

Hi Ron, (en English for international readers).

I got your message that you made a deletion-request regarding: Lussenburg1.JPG It might be correct that the rights aren't OK for publication on Commons, but I'm not convinced that it should be deleted.

The image is a self made low quality photograph of the original painting. The painting in question is fully owned by me. I couldn't find the exact rules to follow regarding the rights of the image. As mentioned in the deletion-request: the painter of the work died in 1975. We bought that painting (together with another painting of the same artist) in 1972 directly from the artist. After we bought both paintings the artist asked us if he could get this and the other painting back for a few days to make new (professional) photo's of both paintings as the original photoshoot (before the exhibition where we aquired the paintings) failed.

One of the new pictures was used in the book De Stervende Zuiderzee (but not this painting). As far as I know this painting isn't included in any book.

What is the (copyright) status of a picture taken from a painting someone owns. Please let me know where I can find the apropiate rule(s)?

Many thanks, --Tonkie (talk) 22:31, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Hello Tonkie, I'm not sure if I can explain it in proper English, but I'll give it a try: Dutch copyright laws are very strict. Regarding to statues there is a rule that's sometimes called 'freedom of panorama', this means if a sculpture is permanently placed in public, you are allowed to take pictures and use them. Paintings do not belong to 'freedom of panorama'. The rule in this case, is that you need permission. Not from the owner of the painting, but from the painter. You can only use the picture if he/she deceased more than 70 years ago. You can read more about it on this page.
Placing a low quality photograph for Wikipedia only may in some cases be allowed on the English version ('fair use'-policy), but not on the Dutch one and -as far as I know- also not on Commons. Greetings, Ronn

About a deletion...[edit]

I uploaded this picture about a statue around one year ago, it's been on the wikipedia page since then. http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Antwerpen-Antigoon.JPG

However I got a message yesterday that it was deleted because "Belgium has no freedom of panorama" and according to the reference: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/COM:FOP#Belgium

There is no panorama freedom in Belgium. The modern pieces of art cannot be the central motive of a commercially available photographs without permission of the artwork copyright holder

I'm not too convinced that it applies in this case. Or may be we should also delete all the other pictures of the same category from this list: Image:2005_manneke_pis05.jpg Image:Cinquantenaire.jpg Image:JacobVAGent.JPG among many many others


Or may be the picture should be placed like this one? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Atomium_20-08-07.jpg

Dear Ph.viny, I'm not happy with the fact that there's no FOP in Belgium. But it's not my law. ;-) And yes, I'm afraid more pictures should be deleted. However, that doesn't mean all pictures of statues will have to go; The Cinquantenaire for instance can stay, Thomas Vinçotte died in 1925, more than 70 years ago. And 'Manneke pis' is not a 'modern piece of art' either, it was made in 1619! Ronn (talk) 06:27, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
Let me add this info: Fair Use images like File:Atomium 20-08-07.jpg are not allowed on Wikimedia Commons. As is the case with nl.wikipedia as well. Sorry,--Gerardus (talk) 07:46, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Willem de Vlamingh[edit]

Hi Ronn, toevalling ben ik al een week bezig met foto's en artikelen m.b.t. Australië, waar ik Willem de Vlamingh ook al tegenkwam. Ik heb de gevonden foto's nu in een cat. samengevoegd met de door jou bewerkte Vlieland-foto.

Ik begrijp je aktie om het Fop-sjabloon weg te halen. Ik heb er vorig jaar weken over gedaan om dat diverse mensen aan hun verstand te peuteren (Nl. + vooral De), dat het absoluut zinloos is om al die duizenden foto's uit Ned. en Duitsland en elders te voorzien van het uiterst bizarre FOP-sjabloon. Ik heb geen idee wie ze waarmee willen waarschuwen. Het is overigens een niet voor ons bestemde mededeling, maar gericht op de arme zielen die in NIET-FOP landen wonen. Mijn stelling is dat onze foto's door hen gebruikt kunnen worden ook in NIET-FOP wikipedia's. Hun stelling is dat dat niet zo is. We komen niet nader tot elkaar en ik heb mijn twijfel over de sjabloonplaatsing geuit en daarmee kennelijk basta. De discussie liep vanzelf op de klippen. Naast FOP/NIET-FOP is er een evengroot probleem genaamd Fair Use op en.wikipedia en dat vind ik persoonlijk nog veel ergelijker. Groetend, Gerard.--Gerardus (talk) 11:33, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Het blijft een rare discussie dat hele FOP-gedoe. Als ik me keurig aan de regels houdt en een foto van een standbeeld in België voor verwijdering nomineer, krijg ik te horen dat de foto mag blijven omdat er een gebouw op de achtergrond staat. Een zelfde soort foto vanuit een andere hoek wordt wel verwijderd. Tja... En als de NLse wetgever duidelijk aangeeft dat er wel sprake is van FOP, zoals nu bij De Vlamingh, wordt er een sjabloon bij een foto geplakt. Raar! Ik zal me er maar niet te druk over maken. Gr. Ronn (talk) 09:50, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Copyright[edit]

Beste Ronn, bedankt voor je waarschuwing. Ik ben copyrightholder en zal een permission mailtje sturen. Voorbeeldtekst daarvan gevonden. Het enige is dat ik niet helemaal de weg kan vinden tussen al die verschillende licenties. Er is zoveel over geschreven. Welk type licentie kan ik het beste geven?--77.165.165.148 11:25, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Als je de toestemmingsgegevens mailt, zullen die worden beoordeeld door een moderator. De moderator zal vervolgens het licentiegebeuren in orde maken. Gr. Ronn (talk) 14:14, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

File:JRSerrano.jpg[edit]

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

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


Afrikaans | العربية | 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 | Tiếng Việt | 中文 | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−

Martin H. (talk) 17:55, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

File tagging File:Yun_Ok-Hee.jpg[edit]

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

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

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

shizhao (talk) 02:02, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

I provided a link. Ronn (talk) 10:12, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

TUSC token 795ee98c4348347e4ff402f0e283b309[edit]

I am now proud owner of a TUSC account!

File:Ruban.jpg[edit]

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

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


Afrikaans | العربية | 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 | Tiếng Việt | 中文 | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−

Anatoliy (talk) 12:03, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Again? Sigh... Ronn (talk) 07:56, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

TUSC token f7d7473d5ad29bc6d322432843ad2895[edit]

I am now proud owner of a TUSC account!

Mol[edit]

Beste Ron,

Tot mijn verbazing zag ik dat je de foto van Hubertus Mol had verwijderd. Natuurlijk ben ik niet de fotograaf maar de naaste familie van dhr Mol had mijn gevraagd en toestemming gegeven om deze foto te gebruiken.

Ik zou dan ook graag zien dat hij teruggezet werd.

Met vriendelijke groet,

Jan Bax jbee123 jfcmbax@ziggo.nl

Ik heb de foto niet verwijderd, dat heeft een moderator gedaan. Commons is nu eenmaal -terecht- strikt met auteursrechten. Je hebt toestemming nodig van de fotograaf, of diens erfgenamen, en dient ook aan te tonen dat je over die toestemming beschikt. Gr. Ronn (talk) 13:50, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Copyright status: File:Hoofdstraat 265 Hoogezand.jpg[edit]

Български | Català | Čeština | Dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | English | فارسی | Suomi | Français | Magyar | Italiano | 日本語 | Македонски | മലയാളം | Norsk bokmål | Polski | Português | Română | Slovenščina | Svenska | +/−

Warning sign
This media may be deleted.
Thanks for uploading File:Hoofdstraat 265 Hoogezand.jpg. I notice that the file page either doesn't contain enough information about the license or it contains contradictory information about the license, so the copyright status is unclear.

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

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

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

Denniss (talk) 17:25, 8 June 2013 (UTC)


العربية | Català | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form) | Eesti | English | Español | Français | Galego | Magyar | Italiano | Nederlands | Polski | Română | Svenska | ไทย | Українська | +/−

Thank you for participating in Wiki Loves Monuments 2013! Please help with this survey.

Dear Ronn,
Thank you for contributing to Wiki Loves Monuments 2013, and for sharing your pictures with the whole world! We would like to ask again a few minutes of your time.

Thanks to the participation of people like you, the contest gathered more than 365,000 pictures of cultural heritage objects from more than 50 countries around the world, becoming the largest photography competition to have ever taken place.

You can find all your pictures in your upload log, and are of course very welcome to keep uploading images and help develop Wikimedia Commons, even though you will not be able to win more prizes (just yet).

If you'd like to start editing relevant Wikipedia articles and share your knowledge with other people, please go to the Wikipedia Welcome page for more information, guidance, and help.

To make future contests even more successful than this year, we would like to invite you to share your experiences with us in a short survey. Please fill in this short survey in your own language, and help us learn what you liked and didn't like about Wiki Loves Monuments 2013.

Kind regards,
the Wiki Loves Monuments team

Wiki Loves Monuments logo

Notification about possible deletion[edit]

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

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


Afrikaans | العربية | 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 | Tiếng Việt | 中文 | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−

Affected:


Yours sincerely, Stefan4 (talk) 19:46, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

File:Vierziger-Medaille.jpg[edit]

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

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


Afrikaans | العربية | 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 | Tiếng Việt | 中文 | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−

Stefan4 (talk) 16:28, 17 December 2013 (UTC)



العربية | Català | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | English | Español | Eesti | Français | Magyar | Nederlands | Polski | Svenska | ไทย | +/−

Thank you for taking part in the Wiki Loves Monuments participants' survey!

Dear Ronn,

Thank you for taking part in the Wiki Loves Monuments participants' survey. Your answers will help us improve the organization of future photo contests!

In case you haven't filled in the questionnaire yet, you can still do so during the next 7 days.

And by the way: the winning pictures of this year's international contest have been announced. Enjoy!

Kind regards,
the Wiki Loves Monuments team

Wiki Loves Monuments logo

File:Assen Gert Sennema - Sisyphus 2.jpg[edit]

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

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


Afrikaans | العربية | 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 | Tiếng Việt | 中文 | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−

BaseSat (talk) 14:11, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Glas-in-loodraam Hoendiepskade[edit]

Moi Ronn, heb jij toevallig enig idee wie dit glas-in-loodraam zou kunnen hebben gemaakt? In de monumentbeschrijving is er helaas niets over te vinden en ook een rondje KB-krantenarchief levert niets op. Groet, Wutsje 16:23, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Moi Wutsje, ik ben op dat terrein niet thuis. Jammer dat het niet zichtbaar gesigneerd is. Gr. Ronn (talk) 18:37, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Zeker. Het is overigens slechts één raam uit een zesdelig venster, dat ook in zijn geheel alleszins de moeite waard is om te bekijken (wat overigens voor het hele gebouw geldt). Zelf ben ik er gewoon naar binnen gelopen, wat me prompt een rondleiding opleverde. Dank voor je reactie en groet, Wutsje 18:53, 8 July 2014 (UTC)