User talk:Stefan4

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

Contents

Copyright violation[edit]

File:Copa_del_mundo.png — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.20.69.216 (talk • contribs) 2014-07-04T17:34:51 (UTC)

See Commons:Deletion requests/File:Copa del mundo.png. --Stefan4 (talk) 13:05, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Is this public domain?[edit]

Main gallery: Commons:Deletion requests/File:MN Stockholm.jpg.

Hi, May I request your opinion? File:MN Stockholm.jpg is a postcard issued by the Swedish American Line, based in Göteborg. The PD-Italy tag used by the uploader is probably inapplicable, as it is unlikely that the image was first published in Italy. But, as it was probably first published in Sweden, would it meet the conditions of PD-Sweden-photo? I am not familiar with the conditions of that tag. -- Asclepias (talk) 01:16, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

User:Denniss nominated the file for deletion, so I replied in the deletion discussion. --Stefan4 (talk) 13:12, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Deletion nomination for Trinidad and Tobago and Guyanese passports[edit]

Can you provide justification for the nomination for the deletion of these images? These images in no way violate any copyright laws of Wikipedia have been composed by me (Saltprune416). If Wikipedia and further users like yourself continue this modus operandi, pretty soon I will remove all my contributions to this website as it goes against fair inclusion and contribution to the tenets of this database. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Saltprune416 (talk • contribs) 2014-07-12T15:17:46‎ (UTC)

The uploader claims to have designed the passports, but has not provided any evidence that this is the case. Passports are typically created by governments. --Stefan4 (talk) 15:24, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

There isn't any claim on design. The image like thousands of others on Wikipedia were taken and are fair use. Images of scenery are not designed by the photographer, the same way an image of a passport is simply a depiction of an object that exists by said photographer. Passports are indeed owned by governments, but a search on the majority of passport pages uploaded and complimentary photos show no evidence that they have been uploaded by either governments nor sourced from government websites. I'd like it if you highlight government contributions to the following pages and passports: Canadian, American, British, European Union passports etc.

Would it be better if I were to draw the passport as I see it then upload it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Saltprune416 (talk • contribs) 2014-07-12T16:49:01 (UTC)

Fair use claims are not valid on Commons, see COM:FU. Non-free passports need permission from the government that created it. --Stefan4 (talk) 17:02, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Please give me some time to ask permission from the governments involved to use said images of the passport that are freely available online and to anyone with a camera to upload. Will respond momentarily. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Saltprune416 (talk • contribs) 2014-07-12T17:12:15 (UTC)

If you obtain permission, make sure that the permission is usable by anyone. See COM:OTRS for instructions on where to send the permission for verification. --Stefan4 (talk) 17:34, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
Puisque vous affirmez que les photos de passeports sont sujettes à autorisations préalables des gouvernements qui les délivrent, pouvez-vous m'indiquer quel loi/décret/arrêté... concerne les passeports que délivre l'Etat français. Merci d'avance. Cordialement. Barbe-Noire (talk) 12:51, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Hej[edit]

Kik lige på Commons:Deletion requests/File:Post Danmark logo.svg.png. Hilsen --Søren1997 (talk // contributions) 18:14, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

File source is not properly indicated: File:NanoIntegris logo.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:NanoIntegris logo.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:NanoIntegris logo.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!

Ellin Beltz (talk) 23:58, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

RfC on the scope of file renaming criterion 2[edit]

Pursuant to the closing of the RFC "Proposed overhaul of the "Which files should be renamed?" section", a second RfC has been opened at Commons:Requests for comment/File renaming criterion 2 specifically to address the scope of criterion 2, which currently reads "To change from a completely meaningless name to a name that describes what the image displays." Since you participated in the initial discussion, I am notifying you of the follow-up RfC.

Please note that I fully anticipate that the first few days will see a number of additional options proposed, so it may be a good idea to check back periodically on the RfC.

Thank you. Sven Manguard Wha? 01:43, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

AN/U[edit]

I've re-activated that AN/U regarding your approach to DR. See 'Stefan4'.Ultra7 (talk) 14:59, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

A third opinion[edit]

Hi.

Can I please have your opinion on this: File talk:Microsoft logo.svg#DOCTYPE. The discussion has started badly and I think a third opinion would definitely be needed.

Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 10:37, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Explicación[edit]

Me gustaría que razonaras tus cambios. No entiendes que es un enlace muerto y nulo. --Parair (talk) 20:25, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

I stand corrected[edit]

Thank you for providing me with knowledge about the fact that the Swedish passport design is not, in fact, freely usable. I should have researched more about what rules apply to passports of this kind. Jag tackar för det...

-User:Pixelmaniac pictures (leave a reply)

Sibelius Monument[edit]

Thanks for the notification, I was not aware that Finnish copyright law is so strict as to forbid publishing photos of monuments on public spaces. Very strange. --FlavrSavr (talk) 14:26, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

File:Type 039 submarine.jpg[edit]

Please, do not remove Flickr review failed templete while nominating for deletion. Thanks. Ankry (talk) 18:49, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

The file has been deleted. Which template did I remove? Judging from the notification on the uploader's talk page, it seems that I used the standard license reviewing script which I assume most people use for reviewing Flickr files. --Stefan4 (talk) 18:52, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Modern buidings in South Korea[edit]

Hi Stefan4 I would very much welcome your thoughts at Commons:Village_pump/Copyright#No_Commercial_reuse_FoP_in_South_Korea.2C_files_of_modern_buildings. Thanks--KTo288 (talk) 10:56, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

File:Guerrillafilmica.png[edit]

This image was deleted because of a possible copyright violation.
I'm sorry about this. Is the second time it happends to me. I'm still learnig about how to properly upload media to Wikimedia commons. I swear, I've read about licenses and all that stuff but is a little bit complicated information to me, especially at the moment when I have to choose the proper licensing for uploaded files.
I didn't mean to violate any Copyright, I have never wanted to do it. So, please help me and guide me to upload correctly this image.
I digitized the image by scanning the cover of the book. I corrected yellow areas and changed resolution. Please tell me, will it be right if I upload the image again and add the following information?
Thanks for you help.

Sicerely, Wikiyashir (talk) 00:59, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

This seems to be about an image for the article es:Canal 6 de Julio, la guerrilla fílmica on Spanish Wikipedia. Spanish Wikipedia does not accept any fair use images. You may also not upload any fair use images to Wikimedia Commons If you wish to use the image in the article, then you must ask the copyright holder to follow the procedure at COM:OTRS. --Stefan4 (talk) 14:08, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
Tanks for your answer.
I am intended to create an english version of that article, I think fair use image can be used, doesn't it?
canalseisdejulio it's not a trade mark but a Non-profit organization, they aloud free distribution of their content... how should I proceed?
For the use of the image on Spanish Wikipedia I most contact to canalseisdejulio, right?
I'll correct it... Please give me time.
Sincerely Wikiyashir (talk) 05:07, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
The cover can be used in an English version of es:Canal 6 de Julio, la guerrilla fílmica using w:Template:Non-free book cover. Remember to fill in w:Template:Non-free use rationale book cover, or alternatively use the upload wizard, w:Wikipedia:File Upload Wizard, which should help you with that. --Stefan4 (talk) 13:02, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
Thank you a lot for helping me.
I'll check the info and I'll work on it. I'm going to search info about logos and DVD/VHS covers, too... I don't want to be tagged as a Copyright infractor again.
Sincerely Wikiyashir (talk) 01:05, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

About your copyvio tag[edit]

Hello there Stefan4, you tagged files which I created and uploaded based on the design by ummjackson, dogecoin co-founder, which is freely licensed [1], I didn't understand at first why the image on wikipedia had a commercial license for that, since the image itself is creative commons and the project is released under MIT open license [2] [3], so I found your tagging a little impulsive and unnecessary, please before adding such a tag, call for a discussion, or open a request for comment or request for deletion. Thanks in advance Eduemoni (talk) 16:25, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

And you may cite Original_Doge_meme.jpg as reference, however the photo illustration itself is not original, it is a raster version, while mine is a vector, comprising of geometric forms and the pictures diverges, they are clearly not the same. Eduemoni (talk) 16:29, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
It is a copyright violation to state that a file licensed under {{mit}} is licensed under {{cc-zero}}.
There is no evidence that "kabosu112", who posted this blog post, has licensed the photograph of which this is a derivative work under any license whatsoever. --Stefan4 (talk) 16:58, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
As it may seem you don't understand about licensing, or I was not clear enough, the dogecoin project is licensed under MIT license, and the image itself is creative commons. Wasn't it clear enough? Eduemoni (talk) 01:58, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Copyright status: File:Moriyama and Tokojiro.jpg[edit]

Stefan4,

Thank you for your warning about the copyright status of above mentioned file. As this is my first appearance here, I hope you will excuse me if this is not the right way to reply to your notification. I would like to stress, furthermore, that as a writer, filmmaker and photographer I try to be as keen as possible when it comes to copyrights.

This said, the picture is a hand colored version of a photo taken around 1860. A copy with a unknown copyrightstatus (via Photoshop) can be found here: http://digital-archives.ccny.cuny.edu/exhibits/harris/moyiyama_pop.html. The colored photo which I uploaded, with a unknown copyrightstatus as well, can be found here: http://friendsofmacdonald.com/wp-content/gallery/main/perrys-interpreters-ranalds-students.jpg. As for the latest reference, I contacted the Friends of MacDonald and we had this 'conversation'.

Fred (me) to Alice, member of the Friends of MacDonald:

do you think, alice, that this picture from the fom-site is free of rights? in other words, is it allowed to use it in a wikipedia entry on einosuke moriyama? and if you don't know, who knows? http://friendsofmacdonald.com/wp-content/gallery/main/perrys-interpreters-ranalds-students.jpg

Alice to Fred:

It is just as 'free' as the two images of Ranald (MacDonald, fd). There is also a daguerreotype of Moriyama sitting with a group of other men (though not the group of students, I'm pretty sure of that). I would not worry about using the image.

That is as far as I can get. For the time being I did not use the picture in the Dutch wiki for Einosuke Moriyama. Instead I used a 'french' one already in this pages.

Einosuke Moriyama (links)

I certainly hope that this will do for being able to use the file Moriyama and Tokojiro.jpg.

Sincerely,

Fred Dijs — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fred Dijs (talk • contribs) 2014-08-25T19:59:27 (UTC)

If this was created in the mid-19th century, then why did you specify on the file information page that it was drawn today?
I did not specify the date of the file, Stefan4, the computer did when saving the file from the web. The above is not about the file, but about the picture. The picture can not be dated exactly, neither the original photograph, nor the colored one. Anyway, I tried to explain the background, I am not making a or my point, I hope to upload a beautiful picture from former times. And help is appreciated. It is the first time I use these pages, as already stated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fred Dijs (talk • contribs)
In the meantime I found the photographer and the year he took the picture. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fred Dijs (talk • contribs)
In Japan, the general rule is that something is in the public domain if the person who created it has been dead for more than 50 years. In this case, the person has been dead for more than twice that time, so the image is clearly in the public domain in Japan. --Stefan4 (talk) 12:51, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

[edit]

Hello. I wasn't aware that I had overwritten the image. I'm sorry if I did, I didn't mean too. Is there a file already with the name or has it been converted? Once again, sorry. CorkythehornetfanTalk 00:14, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

The file will probably be split by an administrator eventually. There was already a different logo under the same file name (same design but in a different colour). --Stefan4 (talk) 12:53, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Malcolm[edit]

Hej! Jag missade någon vital kryssruta när jag la upp bilden på Malcolm Dixelius. Jag är osäker på hur jag korrigerar det på själva sidan, du kanske kan tipsa mig om det? Tack och bock på förhand. (Och jag bara utgår från att du pratar svenska, säg till annars.) Marfuas (talk) 10:12, 27 August 2014 (UTC) Hej igen! Glöm det, jag är nästan helt säker på att Fores bilder låg under CC-BY, men det gjorde de tydligen inte. Radera på, om du har den makten. Marfuas (talk) 10:27, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

CC-BY-NC går inte bra, så den filer kommer att raderas. Jag föreslår att du i fortsättningen använder toollabs:flickr2commons för att ladda upp filer från Flickr. Då kontrolleras det automatiskt att filen är under en giltig licens. --Stefan4 (talk) 12:59, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

What should I do with own designs?[edit]

You've sent me a message in my talk page. The mentioned Logo is my own work (design). What should I do to avoid deleting it? Mhhossein (talk) 13:33, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Logos are usually not created by Commons users, so you will need to send evidence that you created it to OTRS. See COM:OTRS for instructions. --Stefan4 (talk) 13:45, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

re "Better source request for File:Yorkshire Museum, York (Eboracum) (7685208580) 2.jpg"[edit]

As I clearly wrote in the upload information for the file, it is altered from the existing file File:Yorkshire Museum, York (Eboracum) (7685208580).jpg. The copyright allows for alterations if the source is credited, which it was. I did try to find the original file on Flickr, but the uploader of File:Yorkshire Museum, York (Eboracum) (7685208580).jpg only provided a link to the author's page. However, the original upload was checked and confirmed by the bot User:File Upload Bot (Magnus Manske). Paul Barlow (talk) 18:12, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Read the Infobox properly[edit]

If you don't stop edit warring, i'm going to file a request for mediation. The date for photographs is 1958 and not 1941.

{{PD-India}}{{PD-India-URAA}}Myopia123 (talk) 19:40, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Do not remove information that a file is up for deletion. This just risks causing confusion to users who are not aware that the files are listed for deletion. You need to read the text more carefully. As you can see at w:WP:URAA:
  • For photographs taken before 1908, the term in India is 50 years from creation.
  • For other photographs published before 1941, the term in India is 50 years from publication.
  • For other photographs, the term in India is 60 years from publication.
You must show that the photograph isn't protected by copyright in the United States. This can only be the case if the copyright already had expired in India as of 1996. Otherwise, the term in the United States is 95 years from publication. This is what gives you the 1941 rule. Keep in mind that many photographs might not be published until some time after they were taken. For example, family photographs are usually not published at all. You must therefore provide evidence of publication. --Stefan4 (talk) 19:59, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
Stop making up your own rules. As far as I can tell, you are breaking with Wikipedia policy.Myopia123 (talk) 20:48, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
That law lists BOTH US and Indian laws. It is used for images of everyone from Mahatma Gandhi to Rahul Gandhi. You obviously have an agenda and you are breaking with multiple wikipedia policies, including NPOV.Myopia123 (talk) 20:49, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
You have added several copyright tags, but without providing any evidence that either of them applies to the files to which you have added them. --Stefan4 (talk) 21:01, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Adminship[edit]

Hi Stefan4. If you ever feel the urge to become an admin, I'd be happy to act as nominator. As others have noted, many of us think that you are one already, and I'm sure you'll be great at it.--KTo288 (talk) 13:06, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

I think a lot of people would support a Stefan4 nomination but I recall that he has previously decided against running because of "certain security risks". Green Giant (talk) 14:48, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
  1. A person who provides a "bulletin board system". For example, Commons is a "bulletin board system" under the law.
  2. Someone who supervises the service on behalf of the provider.
The first kind of people must also provide their identity to everyone who connects to the service. This is similar to 17 U.S.C. § 512 (c) (2), which requires the Wikimedia Foundation to identify itself to Commons readers.
Under Swedish law, it seems likely that a user who holds the "delete" user right is a person of either "type 1" or "type 2", meaning that the user needs to delete any files which violate the Swedish copyright law as soon as the user becomes aware of the files, or face legal problems. Commons hosts plenty of files which are unfree in Sweden, usually because of lack of the rule of the shorter term for works by EEA citizens (e.g. {{PD-Italy}} created after 1968), or because of the lack of respect for related rights for photographic images. The law also requires deleting some other material such as "obvious child pornography" and "obvious hate speech". However, such other material would typically be deleted anyway for being out of scope (harassment and/or illegal in the United States). By not holding any deletion rights on Commons, I try to stay away from this problem. --Stefan4 (talk) 15:34, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for your answer, its a shame that becoming an admin would place you in a untenable position, but admin or not thank you for your work and insight.--KTo288 (talk) 22:45, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Comment by Salah- 56789 (talk · contribs)[edit]

I do not speak English well I've signed a mistake Please delete the image --Salah- 56789 (talk) 17:06, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

The file, File:Oujda222.jpg, has been deleted by someone. --Stefan4 (talk) 20:48, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Copyright of Indian images[edit]

Hi,

I am very disappointed by your message here. I already reverted your attempt to change the template {{PD-India}}. I told you that I have a confirmation by a professional lawyer. Your edit is counterproductive. I expect better. Regards, Yann (talk) 16:24, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Seconded. Stefan4 has been overly aggressive in this matter.Myopia123 (talk) 14:24, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
Sorry. There are dozens of pages all over the place which indicate copyright rules for India, and they all contradict each other, thus confusing me. Even recent statements by User:Yann contradict each other. The {{PD-India}} template also states different things in different languages. I was hoping that Yann would be able to clarify exactly how it works and also add relevant references to the various pages, but I guess I expressed myself improperly.
As far as I can see, there are three different copyright laws which provide three different copyright terms:
  • The 1911 law: 50 years from creation. There is also the 1914 law which doesn't seem to have changed any terms. Some pages, such as w:WP:URAA, COM:CRTIND and the English and Italian versions of {{PD-India}}, state that photographs remain in the public domain if this term already had expired when the law was changed in 1957. On the other hand, {{PD-India}} in Dutch and Portuguese only mentions one term (60 years from publication), which would require copyright restoration of works which had already fallen into the public domain by 1957.
  • The 1957 law: 50 years from publication. Some pages (such as w:WP:URAA) suggest that existing photographs had a term extension from 50 years from creation to 50 years from publication. Other pages, such as COM:CRTIND, suggest that this longer term didn't affect preexisting photographs but only new photographs.
  • The 1992 law: all terms extended by 10 years. In this edit, Yann wrote that this extension didn't affect preexisting photographs, at least not pre-1958 ones. On the other hand, in this edit, Yann wrote that photographs from 1942-45 were not yet in the public domain in India as of 1996 (thereby implying an extension to 60 years from creation for preexisting photographs), whereas photographs from 1957 already are in the public domain in India (implying a term shorter than 60 years from creation). Yann's second edit seems to contradict itself, and it also seems to contradict Yann's first edit. With regard to the Indian copyright status, it is necessary to know what happened here until the end of 2018. Other affected countries are at least the United States (URAA) and New Zealand (rule of the shorter term abolished in 1994 according to w:Rule of the shorter term).
I hope that Yann or someone else can clarify all of these contradictions and update all relevant pages. --Stefan4 (talk) 15:23, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
The point is that the 1957 law is not retroactive, therefore all pictures upto 1957 are in the public domain (50 years after creation). It seems obvious that here, I mean not in the public domain in USA because of URAA, but still in the public domain in India. I am not sure what the Wikipedia page means, it may be wrong. I suppose that the Dutch and Portuguese versions were not updated (the Engish had a different information before). Regards, Yann (talk) 15:28, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
But in this edit, you wrote that photographs from 1942-45 still were copyrighted in India as of 1996, although they were more than 50 years old at that point. --Stefan4 (talk) 15:50, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
I didn't say that. Please read again. Yann (talk) 17:08, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
Just one more point of consideration for this discussion specifically about pictures from Indian Military websites(rank insignia, medals, portraits of awardees etc). The Indian Government(the assumed copyright holder, until the public dispute vs copyrighted dispute is settled) is NEVER going to sue someone for using images in Wikipedia articles. While I understand this may be hard for americans to understand, India is not a litigious society.Myopia123 (talk) 13:53, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

How do I post an image that is mine?[edit]

Hello there Stefan!

You left me this message: User_talk:Lidiabartlam#.7B.7BAutotranslate.7C1.3DFile:Planaltos_de_Cristal.JPG.7Cbase.3DImage_permission.2Fheading.7D.7D"Thanks for uploading File:Planaltos de Cristal.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:Planaltos de Cristal.JPG) and the above demanded information in your request."

And my question is what copyright do I assign to the image then? The picture was taken by my father Hélio Cunha (whom the page is about), he wished to have a painting showing his work on the page, so we uploaded one, but none of the copyright options made sense to me... the image is mine, I didn't get it from anywhere, copyright goes to me. So what option do I chose?

Thanks in advance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lidiabartlam (talk • contribs) 2014-09-16T20:01:41 (UTC)

The painter needs to follow the instructions in the talk page notice and contact OTRS. If the painter is dead, his heir should contact OTRS instead. --Stefan4 (talk) 22:55, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Stop reverting my deletion notices[edit]

For your benefit and to allay your ignorance, read my comment on this page! Commons:Deletion requests/Files on User:OgreBot/Notable uploads/2014 September 16Ineuw talk 16:31, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Stop removing deletion tags from files nominated for deletion! If the tag is removed, users might overlook the fact that the files are up for deletion. --Stefan4 (talk) 16:35, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
The files are NOT up to be deleted. Anybody, especially bots, can tag anything to be deleted. Learn your copyright laws!!! Please back up your claim according to the copyright laws of the US and the relevant countries, Furthermore, we have thousands of documents on Wikisource claimed by Google. I bet you didn't read my notice, or your English is too poor to understand it, or the Google copyright notice. So please desist from interfering in Wikisource projects. — Ineuw talk 16:50, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
There are still revisions of the files with the unfree Google notices and those revisions are still to be deleted. You may NOT upload Google notices as Google holds the copyright to those notices! --Stefan4 (talk) 17:03, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
You have a point regarding the notices. I compiled a list of all DjVu files with the Google copyright notices and will help remove them in the coming days. You can see the list HERE. — Ineuw talk 08:05, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Google Front Notices[edit]

Do you plan on compiling a list of all files with such a front notice?

It would be "useful" to know which files might need to be 'fixed'. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 21:24, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure how to find all of them. I spotted some when looking at recent uploads, and those are the ones I nominated for deletion. The problem when people take a file from the Internet is that people do not only upload the public domain material, but also other material which is contained in the file, in this case a full page of text written by Google. This is somewhat similar to wmf:DMCA Cranach Digital Archive, where someone uploaded a file containing both a public domain image and non-free EXIF metadata, and then the Wikimedia Foundation took down the EXIF metadata when a takedown request arrived (while leaving the rest of the file). In that case, the claimant also wanted to take down other material, which the Wikimedia Foundation refused to do. --Stefan4 (talk) 21:35, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
As some indication of the size of the issue you are going to create by enforcing on this, I've started an attempt to identify Indez pages for wokrs at Wikisource that may have an issue. I will note I've had to flag quite a few Google sourced files alreday because of 'missing pages' in scans as well as scans that are of low quality.

Perhaps you could look through: Wikisource:Category:Index_-_File_to_fix and identify the files you object to so that this issue can be dealt with comprehensively, rather than there being a lack of communication between Wikisource and Commons (which is something of an issue at the moment.) ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 22:11, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Other than that it's a case of looking at Page 1 of every djvu file uploaded To commons... A tool for whcih is not beyond the bounds of technical possibility. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 22:11, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

A Commons search and a thhumbnail scan :- https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ASearch&profile=advanced&search=.djvu&fulltext=Search&ns6=1&profile=advanced , I counted at least 66 in 1000 on a not very detailed scan. Using a deletion process to resolve what is seemingly a very minor issue, isn;t just tearing out pages, it's akin to using a flamethrower :( 00:23, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

On Front Notices[edit]

Owing to your stance, perhaps you would like to suggest replacements for the following?

In respect of number in the former, considerable effort was made to get them transcribed, an effort that could have been effectviely wasted unless certain views you currently hold are modified. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 20:37, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

File:అక్షరశిల్పులు.pdf and other books[edit]

Dear Stefan4, a mail has already been sent to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org regarding permissions of the following books :

    భారత స్వాతంత్ర్యోద్యమం - ముస్లింలు
    భారత స్వాతంత్ర్యోద్యమం - ముస్లిం మహిళలు
    మైసూరు పులి టిపూ సుల్తాన్
    షహీద్-యే-ఆజం అష్ఫాఖుల్లా ఖాన్
    భారత స్వాతంత్ర్య సంగ్రామం - ముస్లిం యోధులు, మొదటి భాగం
    భారత స్వాతంత్ర్యోద్యమం - ముస్లిం ప్రజా పోరాటాలు
    చిరస్మరణీయులు, మొదటి భాగం
    1857 ముస్లింలు
    అక్షరశిల్పులు
    భారత స్వాతంత్ర్యోద్యమం - ఆంధ్రప్రదేశ్ ముస్లింలు

The mail was sent on 14 August with subject line as Re-releasing my books under CC-BY-SA 4.0 from the mail id of the author. The author also has all rights over each of the images used. Please let me know what tags to add to each of these books? --రహ్మానుద్దీన్ (talk) 13:33, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

If you send anything to OTRS, please mark the file with {{subst:OP}} so that other people see this. I have now marked 10 files with this based on what you wrote above, and removed the "no permission" tag. --Stefan4 (talk) 13:46, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
Thank you! Do I need to add same for other files (cover images of 10 books above) too? --రహ్మానుద్దీన్ (talk) 15:26, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
If there are other files for which you also sent permission, such as cover images, then please add {{subst:OP}} to those too. --Stefan4 (talk) 15:31, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Manchester Victoria photo[edit]

As you can see in the source near the bottom of the page [5], the photo is licensed for reuse under Creative Commons license. I trust you will clear the mess. Regards Stevo1000 (talk) 14:50, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

As you can see in the source near the bottom of that page, the file is licensed under a different Creative Commons licence than the one you indicated. --Stefan4 (talk) 14:59, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

File:Flag of France (XII-XIII).jpg[edit]

My bad Steve. I am still a noob to Wikipedia and are not very familiar with the use of copyright tags. Now I have made a big correct copyright tag to the article and all well's end well. My sincere apologies for any inconveniences cause to you. Pktlaurence (talk) 08:48, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

La licence de ce fichier n'est pas correcte : File:Jean Paul Brusset Villefranche001.jpg[edit]

Bonjour, Ce fichier a été fourni par Jean Diégo Brusset, le fils de Jean-Paul Brusset. Le photographe n'est pas connu (probablement un ami du père). Cordialement --JMO (talk) 13:20, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

File:Puget Sound Regional Council logo.jpg[edit]

Commons-emblem-issue.svg File:Puget Sound Regional Council logo.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 | 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)‎ | +/−

SounderBruce 00:12, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Copyright status: File:Chełm Nowe Miasto P-1088 1926 Zeszyt6 s18.jpg[edit]

Salut Stefan4, merci pour ton message, mais je suis déjà trop fatigué par les dégats causés sur wiki par ce système des "droits d'auteur" qui s'en fiche des matériaux publics - ces fichiers sont évidemment fait par moi-même et réprésentent des réproductions publiées en 1926 dans "Architectura i Budownictwo" du projet de la Ville Nouvelle à Chelm commandé, payé, acquis et réalisé par la ville de Chelm, donc il appartient sans aucun doute au domaine publique, mais seul leur sujet - c'est-à-dire ce projet n'est pas le mien, donc je ne peux pas attribuer, je pense, à ces fichiers des lisences CC proposées par commons - ce système d'attributions des monopoles par defaut n'est pas du tout comprehensible pour moi et je n'ai malheuresuement pas la moindre idée comment dans un tel cas il faut décrire des telles matériaux publiques de façon correcte - aujourd'hui encore j'ai posé des questions à ce propos dans le groupe wiki polonaise sur le facebook, mais ces gens là s'en fichent éperdument des cas pareils et moi je perdu déjà trop de temps dans des bagarres similaires sur wiki, alors si tu dois les gicler sans pouvoir aider de les décrire de façon correcte, tant pis - en ce qui concerne les sources: File:Chełm Nowe Miasto 1926.jpg j'ai scanné moi-même en 1995 au Musée de Trains à Varsovie et trois autres (File:Chełm Nowe Miasto P-1088 1926 Zeszyt6 s18.jpg; File:Chełm Nowe Miasto P-1088 1926 Zeszyt6 s19a.jpg; File:Chełm Nowe Miasto P-1088 1926 Zeszyt6 s19b.jpg) j'ai réproduit de la publication du 1926 mise récemment sur l'internet par la Bibliothèque de l'Ecole Polytechnique de Silesie (http://delibra.bg.polsl.pl/dlibra/publication/17794?tab=1) avec la notification expresse "disponible sans restrictions" (pl: zasób dostępny bez ograniczeń), mais à part cette publication la plus ancienne, ils ètaient déjà publiés à plusieures reprises (entre autres, par moi-même au journal Gazeta Wyborcza en 16.07.1997, par KUL en 2007, par PAN en 2008); alors je te saurai gré pour ton aide éventuelle, avec meilleures salutations de Pologne, --wkaczura (talk) 01:37, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

je viens de rémarquer que des informations publiées ici: Commons:Copyright_rules_by_territory#Poland découlent clairement, que sur wikimedia commons à ces photographies formellemnt doivent s'appliquer ces deux modèles:
1) avant tout {{Anonymous-EU}} car l'auteur ou les auteurs de ces photos sont inconnus, et ces photos ont été publiées en 1926 dans "Architektura i Budownictwo no 6 p. 18-19" sans indications de leurs auteurs - donc les 70 ans ont passés dès qu'elles étaient rendues publiques et leurs auteurs tout ce temps restaient inconnus;
2) indépendament du modèle {{Anonymous-EU}} en plus ausssi le modèle {{PD-Polish}} est apliquable car:
"the following conditions:
  1. Image is a photograph
  2. Photograph was published or distributed in Poland before May 23, 1994
  3. Photographer is Polish or the photograph was first published in Poland"
de façon claire et évidente découlent de la publication mentionnée ci-dessus "Architektura i Budownictwo no 6 p. 18-19" mise dernierement à disposition publique par la Bibliothèque Principale de l'Ecole Polytechnique de la Silesie ici avec la notification, en plus, "ressource disponible sans restrictions";
- est-ce que quelqu'un peut aider corriger les déscriptions de ces photos de façon juste selon les règles de wikimedia commons, afin d'éviter l'objection du vandalisme ? anyone could help ? - --wkaczura (talk) 06:49, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
Le modèle {{PD-Polish}} est seulement applicable pour des photographies, mais File:Chełm Nowe Miasto P-1088 1926 Zeszyt6 s18.jpg est une carte. Voir aussi Commons:Œuvre dérivée.
Selon Commons:Deletion requests/File:Chełm Nowe Miasto 1926.jpg, la carte est dessinée par Adam Kuncewicz. Si Adam Kuncewicz est le dessinateur, il faut vérifier que Kuncewicz est mort depuis au moins 70 ans. Selon Commons:Deletion requests/File:Chełm Nowe Miasto 1926.jpg, Kuncewicz est mort en 1945. Si Kuncewicz est le seul dessinateur, et si il est mort en 1945, tu ne peux pas importer l'image sur Commons avant de 2016.
Si Adam Kuncewicz n'est pas le dessinateur, et si le dessinateur est anonyme, tu pourras utiliser le modèle {{Anonymous-EU}}. --Stefan4 (talk) 13:56, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
OK Stefan4, merci pour ton opinion - en réponse j'ajoute qu'il n'y a aucune preuve que Kuncewicz (ou Paprocki) soient les auteurs de ce dessin (ni l'un de deux), il n'y a pas des preuves non plus qu'ils étaient à l'époque les deteneurs des quelconques "droits d'auteurs" dans leur sens d'aujourd'hui,
les sources disponibles, que je connais assez bien depuis 1995-98, quand j'ai découvert et travaillé sur ce thème dans mon bureau à Chelm, mentionnent uniquement que Kuncewicz et Paprocki ont conçu l'idée (la conception) pour l'aménagement de la Ville Nouvelle à Chelm, au sein de la Coopérative des Employés de l'Institut de l'Architecture Polonaise de l'Ecole Polytechnique de Varsovie (Spółdzielnia Architektoniczna Pracowników Zakładu Architektury Polskiej Politechniki Warszawskiej), laquelle a reçu une telle commande du pouvoir publique (on ne sait pas du quel - soit de la ville de Chelm, soit de l'état polonais ou de deux, ni exactement quand - soit en 1926, soit déjà en 1925 quand les démarches ont était entrepris par la ville de Chelm; on ne connais pas non plus ni le sujet exact, ni l'étendu du contrat conclu et des sources disponibles ne mentionnent même pas si Kuncewicz et Paprocki ont participé à des phases suivantes de ce projet (1926-1939) développées par d'autres personnes et par la direction des travaux à Chelm), il est donc possible, qu'ils n'ont fait rien d'autre à part cette idée au départ, qui représente un pour mille du projet entier, mais on sait pas;
manque des preuves encyclopediques incontestables, tout c'est qu'on peut déviner aujourd'hui avec une certitude relativement suffisante - c'est premièrement, que la commande était passé par le pouvoir publique non pas aux architectes Kuncewicz et Paprocki, mais à l'institution publique (école nationale) où Kuncewicz et Paprocki étaient employés - et deuxièmement, que des esquisses représentant l'idée de Kuncewicz et Paprocki pour l'aménagement de la Ville Nouvelle à Chelm ont était présentés déjà en juin 1926 sur l'exposition à Varsovie - preuve à l'appui - justement ce numéro 6 de "l'Architektura i Budownictwo" de 1926, qui confirme ces deux aspects;
mais deux faits importants on peut constater avec certitude - que la commande, le contrat et la conception étaient fait avant que la notion quelconque des "droits d'auteurs" existait en Pologne, car la prèmière loi sur les "droits d'auteurs" la Pologne avait introduit juste le 14 juin 1926, sans parler qu'en architecture il n'y avait aucun besoin ni pratique de la prise en consideration des "droits d'auteurs" dans les contrats entre les architectes et les maîtres d'ouvrage encore pendant plusieurs décenies suivantes - donc pretendre aujourd'hui ou exiger de prouver quoi que ce soit concernant les "droits d'auteurs" qui n'existaient pas et ne pouvaient pas être prise en consideration par personne - c'est déjà un remarquable record mondial de la stupidité ou de la mauvaise foi;
et avec toute certitude on peut constater surtout, qu'il y a eu lieu le transfer des "droits d'auteurs" sur le public représenté par les pouvoirs publique de l'époque, ce qui prouve incontestablement la réalisation de ce projet publique, car sans le transfer des "droits d'auteurs" sa realisation entre 1928 et 1939 n'aurait pas été possible - il n'est donc pas possible que les droits déjà transférés et consommés restent toujours près de l'auteur - tout le reste c'est de la pure spéculation, car dans l'architecture jusqu'aujourd'hui aussi toute documentation qui serve à conçevoir, réaliser et promouvoir le projet devient la propriété du maître d'ouvrage en tant que la documentation de l'ouvrage et le maître d'ouvrage acquiert tout droit d'en faire usage - car c'est son droit sacré et naturel d'en disposer à son gré de ce qu'il achète, pour autant que cela serve à la realisation des buts des contrats conclus - c'est le but du contrat qui en tranche toujours et non pas l'artifice des "droits d'auteurs";
pour conclure, d'une part, personne ne peut detenir les droits déjà transférés (ce serait une contradiction logique) et la loi ne peut pas retroact, car cela conduit à l'anarchie et l'illégalité, d'autre part, comme ce projet était publique, il n'est pas question qu'une personne privée puise detenir valablement quelconques droits d'en faire usage (y compris sa documentation, publication, promotion, etc.) à part le public - donc c'est le domaine public, car aucune autre solution n'entre plus en considération - malheuresuement toute cette perte incroyable de temps de ma part est pour rien, car à cette occasion j'ai découvert que wikimedia commons seulement en théorie permet la publication des matériaux qui appartient du domain public par les transfers analogiques des "droits" de leurs "auteurs", mais pose des conditions impossibles à remplir dans la majorité des cas, ce qui explique pourquoi sur commons il n'y a que très peu matériaux similaires - et ceux rares qui s'y trouvent, sont décrites de fause façon, ou par abus des modèles disponibles dont les conditions à tout évidence ne sont pas remplises dans la plus part des cas (p.ex. comme anonyme pour cacher l'auteur, ou par plagiat avec des modifications minimes afin de publier un tel travail comme le sien, etc.) - moi, durant 7 ans je n'en étais pas conscient du tout, mais je laisse ça déjà sans commentaires, je crois que chaqu'un capable de réflechir peut en tirer ses conclusions à son propore usage et pour ma part je n'abandonne ni les armes, ni la lutte pour le domain public, sauf qu'il faut que je change des moyens; en tout cas merci pour ton aide et meilleures salutations, --wkaczura (talk) 19:08, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

"Clean & Clear" add[edit]

Please check File:Clean & Clear TV ad 1956.ogv, I've made reference to the original file, where the uploader specified that the file is under Creative Commons license: Public Domain Mark 1.0 licence. I've also made changes to the page by placing "more than 50 years old" licence. This is all I have for this file, cannot specify any further. Is it enough to have file available with full (or limited rights)? I think it makes great contribution to Clean & Clear article, would be really nice to keep it. --TigerInWoods (talk) 14:03, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Can I remove wrong licence template that you placed? Do you think Creative Commons Attribution 1.0 Generic license is the correct one for this type of file? --TigerInWoods (talk) 15:19, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
  • You have specified that the image has been licensed under "Creative Commons Attribution 1.0 Generic". However, there is no evidence that the file has been licensed under any licence, so the {{wrong license}} tag looks correct to me.
You have added a copyright tag which states that the author has been dead for at least 50 years. That may be the case (it is not specified who the author is and no death year has been specified so the claim can't be verified), but that tag doesn't say anything about the copyright status in the United States as the United States uses other copyright terms for works. Therefore, the {{wrong license}} tag looks correct with regard to that copyright tag too.
You have stated that the film was created by someone called by someone called "Emperor". However, this seems to be the person who uploaded the file to archive.org and is presumably not the author of the film.
On the page https://archive.org/details/1956CommercialForCleanClear it says that the film is in the public domain, but it does not say why the uploader thinks that the file is in the public domain. You therefore needs to verify whether it is in the public domain and, if it is in the public domain, identify the correct reason for this. For example, is this a published film? United States copyright rules mostly depend on when and whether something has been published. I'm not sure what U.S. law says, but Swedish law seems to say that broadcasting a film on television or showing it to people at a cinema normally doesn't constitute publication. This page suggests that broadcasting a film on television is a "public performance" of the work and that a "public performance" isn't strictly publication. Before 1978, the rules were more complex (see also COM:PACUSA). --Stefan4 (talk) 14:11, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for the clarification. You are absolutely right. I have replaced the video at Clean & Clear page with external media template. Do you think the video at Commons should be deleted? I have no further information on this file. It look quite authentic (1956 style) though :) --TigerInWoods (talk) 16:42, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
As I wrote, the main obstacle for determining the copyright status is determining whether the video has been published. I have asked for clarification at COM:VPC#Publication of films as I'm not sure myself. --Stefan4 (talk) 13:55, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

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 | 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)‎ | +/−

--Jayarathina (talk) 07:25, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Colorado Reps[edit]

Stefan: User:Sethant uploaded a total of 78 files of the form File:Colorado-Rep-XXX.jpg. (including one that begins "File:Image-Colorado", one where it is spelled "Colorad", and four where the extension is "JPG")

That's all 78. You said there were 31 files that had the OTRS ticket on them. What are the others? .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:24, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

I've replied at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Colorado-Rep-Mark-Ferrandino.jpg. I note that it says that some, such as File:Colorad-Rep-Joel-Judd.jpg, are taken by an unknown photographer but that the subject of the photograph is the copyright holder. Is there some kind of explanation as to why the subject of the photograph would be the copyright holder? Sounds like an unusual situation. --Stefan4 (talk) 22:54, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
I wouldn't be surprised if a politician bought the copyright to a portrait for use in campaign advertising and so forth. I also wouldn't be surprised if people are simply being careless -- many people, including a lot of Commons users, think that if you go to a portrait studio and pay for a portrait, you own the copyright. Olan Mills, the largest portrait photographer in the USA (I think), explicitly tells its customers that that is not the case. When someone declares to OTRS that they own the copyright, we don't look too hard at it, although I expect that some of those declarations are incorrect. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:15, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
If you go to a photographer in Sweden and ask the photographer to create a portrait photograph for you, the rules are complex:
  • If you went to the photographer before 1 July 1994, then you own the copyright to the photograph.
  • If you went to the photographer on 1 July 1994 or later, then the photographer owns the copyright to the photograph. However, you need to approve any use of the photograph as the photographer's permission otherwise is invalid. This seems to imply some kind of shared copyright where both people have to approve the use of the photograph.
If the photograph is not a portrait photograph, or if it was first published anonymously, then the rules are slightly different (but it is still important to know whether the photograph was taken before 1 July 1994 or not). From what I have understood, United States law generally states that you should replace 1 July 1994 above with 1 January 1978, but for a different reason (w:Pushman v. New York Graphic Society).
Because of the complexities in the rules for determining the copyright (and the fact that many people don't know those rules), I think that we should be very careful with accepting claims of ownership of copyright, in particular when the claimant isn't the photographer. --Stefan4 (talk) 14:55, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Demande de suppression de plusieurs photos de pièces de monnaie belges[edit]

Bonjour Stefan4,

Vous avez demandé la suppression de plusieurs photos de pièces de monnaie belges. J'avoue que ces histoires m'agacent fortement. J'avais fait une demande à la Monnaie royale de Belgique pour obtenir des photos de qualité de toutes les pièces belges et leur autorisation, pour pouvoir illustrer des articles sur les pièces de monnaie dans Wikipédia en français et donc placer les photos des pièces sur Wikimedia Commons afin d'en faire profiter également les autres projets Wikimedia. Il n'est pas facile d'obtenir une réponse de la Monnaie royale mais, suite à une lettre adressée au Commissaire des Monnaies (donc le plus haut placé de la Monnaie Royale), j'avais finalement obtenu toutes les photos (ou presque), et obtenu une autorisation écrite mais ne précisant pas la licence. J'avais introduit une partie des pièces sur Commons en essayant d'être plus complet possible, en indiquant même des légendes en français, néerlandais, anglais et allemande. Vous, personnellement, avez proposé la suppression car il n'y avait pas la prévue que la Monnaie royale autorisait la diffusion sous cette licence. J'ai donc redemandé et obtenu après plusieurs semaines, que la Monnaie royale accepte le texte standard que je leur ai envoyé et qui vient de Wikimedia Commons. J'ai donc remis d'autres photos en reproduisant l'autorisation et cette fois c'est un certain Bloody-libu qui a estimé que ce n'était pas suffisant et demandant que j'envoie le mail original qui m'autorisait à placer ces photos sur Wikimedia Commons. Ce que j'ai fait. Un certain Johan Bos a pris le relai me disant qu'il n'était pas sûr la personne qui m'a donné l'autorisation (càd le responsable numismatique de la Monnaie Royale) pouvait me donner l'autorisation. Il devait le contacter. Je n'ai jamais eu de nouvelle. À présent, c'est vous qui proposez la suppression des fichiers qui avaient échappé à la vigilance des autres. Alors, d'abord, pourquoi ? J'ai l'autorisation. C'est la Monnaie royale qui a les droits sur les pièces de monnaie belge et c'est un de ses représentants qui a donné son autorisation en acceptant le texte standard de Wikimédia et j'ai reproduit ce texte sur chaque photo. Où est à présent le problème ?

Je voulais aussi expliquer mon agacement. Je comprends bien qu'il faut respecter le droit d'auteur. Si vous reproduisez une photo sans l'autorisation du photographe, il est en droit de réclamer et même d'intenter un procès. Une pièce de monnaie, c'est un objet usuel. Il est bien sûr couvert par le droit d'auteur mais les instituts d'émission, propriétaires de droits, n'ont pas vraiment intérêt à pourchasser tous ceux qui diffuseraient l'image des pièces de monnaie car elles sont reproduites partout (horodateur, distributeur, dépliant des banques, site de vente de pièces, etc., etc.) et en plus, ça leur fait de la "publicité" car leur produit, c'est un objet métallique, pas une photo (contrairement aux photographes). Si en plus, l'institut monétaire donne clairement son autorisation, je ne vois pas pourquoi il faut se montrer plus catholique que le pape.

D'autre part, j'ai pris plusieurs heures pour introduire ces pièces, pour aller chercher les CD avec les photos, pour répondre à vous, à Bloody-libu, à Johan Bos... Pour quoi ? Juste parce que je voulais faire avancer le projet Wikimedia Commons et le faire dans les règles. J'aurais pu indiquer comme tant d'autres que c'était un travail personnel alors qu'il n'ont aucune autorisation de la Monnaie royale (voir : File:Pieces belge 20 F.png , File:Pieces belge 5f.png , File:5-Cent-Belgium-1856-Front.jpg , File:Belgie 1 frank 1922.JPG et tant d'autres), j'aurais pu juste les placer dans Wikipedia en français qui a compris que les pièces de monnaie était un peu à part et autorise la reproduction des photos de monnaies dans des cas précis mais non, j'ai cherché à faire profiter plus de monde et être très honnête. En suis-je récompensé ? Pas vraiment ! Ai-je encore envie de me battre pour enrichir Wikimedia Commons de photos de pièces de monnaie pour lesquelles j'ai obtenu les droits ? Pas vraiment ! Ce n'est pas dommage pour moi mais pour l'ensemble des projets Wikimedia et l'ensemble des personnes qui s'intéressent à la numismatique dans la monde.

Voilà, j'ai fini mon plaidoyer. Merci de m'avoir lu.

--Delsaut (talk) 12:43, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

  • Bonsoir,
Comment puis-je vérifier que le message de "Didier Vanoverbeek" a été écrit par Didier Vanoverbeek ? Il faut qu'il envoie le message à OTRS.
J'ai déjà envoyé le message original. Je ne vais pas encore une fois contacter ce monsieur. Il représente la Monnaie royale et m'a déjà dit 3 fois que la Monnaie royale était d'accord. La Monnaie royale est la seule institution qui puisse réagir négativement à la mise à disposition de ces photos. J'ai l'assurance orale, puis écrite qu'elle a bien donné cet accord. Je lui fais confiance et je le crois et je ne veux pas l'importuner encore une fois. Il a d'autres choses à faire. D'autant que vu les arguments toujours différents (méfiance de la provenance du mail comme si j'avais fait un faux, suspicion que M. Vanoverbeeck ne puisse pas donner l'accord, doute sur le droit d'auteur de pièces avec Tintin, Spirou etc.), je ne peux pas être assuré que ce nouveau mail permettra d'ôter tout doute et que quelqu'un ne va pas trouver encore autre chose pour faire supprimer ces photos. Si vous êtes méfiant, contactez-le vous-même (comme l'avait fait Johan Bos). Vous pouvez également consulter la jurisprudence pour vérifier le nombre de procès déclenchés par la Monnaie royale suite à la mise à disposition de la photo d'une de leurs pièces. Si vous ne souhaitez pas faire ces démarches, vous passerez à côté de l'opportunité pour Wikimedia Commons d'intégrer une grande quantité de photos de pièces de monnaie belges. En ce qui me concerne, je ne veux plus perdre mon temps à enrichir Wikimedia Commons dans de telles conditions. Désolé ! --Delsaut (talk) 16:30, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
File:Belgian coin of 20 euro Hergé - obverse.jpg dit "© HERGE/ML". Pourquoi pensez-vous que la Monnaie royale de Belgique soit le propriétaire du droit d'auteur ? --Stefan4 (talk) 20:26, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
Je ne suis pas spécialiste en droit d'auteur. Ce cas-ci peut être discutable mais où déjà voyez-vous la mention "© HERGE/ML" sur File:Belgian coin of 10 euro (EU enlargement) - reverse.TIF (vous avez appliqué la même explication partout) ? D'autre part, vous n'êtes pas sans savoir que "une personne ne pourra pas se prévaloir de la qualité de coauteur de l’œuvre si:[...] elle a créé une œuvre qui est intégrée à une autre œuvre (par exemple, une photographie intégrée dans une base de données), mais il n'y a pas eu concertation pour créer une œuvre commune." (source : Belspo). J'ignore évidemment si Moulinsart a participé à la création de l'œuvre (donc la pièce) mais Hergé n'y a clairement pas participé. Encore une fois, si la Monnaie royale a donné son autorisation, c'est qu'elle pouvait le faire. Je ne peux pas douter qu'elle ne connaisse pas le droit d'auteur sur ses propres pièces mais je ne suis pas juriste. J'imagine qu'un juriste (vous peut-être) peut, au sein de Wikimedia Commons, vérifier exactement quelle(s) autorisation(s) doivent être demandées pour une œuvre composée d'une autre œuvre, dans la législation et la jurisprudence, sachant qu'ici l'œuvre intégrée n'est pas purement intégrée mais "recopiée" puisqu'Hergé n'est pas graveur et qu'il était déjà mort au moment de l'émission de la pièce. Le droit peut très bien accorder la création au graveur et non au dessinateur original mais je vous laisse vérifier cela. --Delsaut (talk) 16:30, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Osama bin Laden.PNG[edit]

Hi, Stefan, you already have been warned not to create unnecessary deletion requests. Please don't. This is a warning. Regards, Yann (talk) 09:35, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

@Yann: The re-nomination doesn't appear to be frivolous; I, like Stefan4, don't understand how "No real doubt that it was first published in Afghanistan" directly leads to "Keep". It appears that people in the first deletion discussion are making indirect assumptions about some copyright rules without saying what they are, let alone citing the rules that back it up. I'm inclined to re-nominate this file myself. Someone needs to walk us through how a photograph, probably shot after 1989 and not shot by a U.S. government employee, can end up public domain without the creator's/photographer's permission. Has someone shown that the photographic work is not "created using an original mode" (Article 6 of the Afghanistan's Copy Right Law Copy Right Law)? Is someone asserting that photographs taken in Afghanistan before 2008 are permanently in the public domain, despite Article 34 of Afghanistan's Copy Right Law saying "Works provided in Article 6 of this Law that have been produced before the enforcement of this law, shall be protected by the provisions of this law"? Or is someone asserting that Commons no longer pays attention to countries without U.S. treaties, despite long-standing practice on Wikipedia and Commons, and the likelihood that the photographer could be citizen of some other country that does have a treaty protecting them regardless of publication in Afghanistan? None of these were really discussed, let alone proven past COM:PRP. --Closeapple (talk) 15:07, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
You guys like controversial DRs, don't you? :( This is a picture taken in Afghanistan, and published in Afghanistan by the US government. If it was published before by someone else, it was most probably also published in Afghanistan. There is no reason to doubt that. This looks clear and simple. Regards, Yann (talk) 17:10, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
@Yann: But what does "Afghanistan" have to do with "Keep"? Are you saying that anything first published in Afghanistan is uncopyrighted? (Because Afghan law says otherwise.) --Closeapple (talk) 17:52, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
You didn't read the DR, did you? Jim said there: if the image were taken in Afghanistan in the 1990s and first published there, that it would be PD. Regards, Yann (talk) 17:56, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
@Yann: Not only did I read it, but then I already addressed it in the very first reply:

Is someone asserting that photographs taken in Afghanistan before 2008 are permanently in the public domain, despite Article 34 of Afghanistan's Copy Right Law saying "Works provided in Article 6 of this Law that have been produced before the enforcement of this law, shall be protected by the provisions of this law"?

My same reply had 2 other ways that there might be a misunderstanding about public domain, too. So even though I've read, contemplated, and guessed 3 different reasons for what I read, all of that is skipped and I'm the (second) one accused of not reading instead. Why is there this attitude with this particular deletion? Is there some other background controversy about this file on some other page that I'm supposed to know about but "didn't read" too? --Closeapple (talk) 20:35, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
...particularly since the uploader is the same one for Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by StanTheMan87, and seems to have even more nice, good-faith statements to say about Stefan4's language abilities. (And no, I don't know Stefan4 particularly well; I just noticed the deletion warnings and wondered why the replies were worded so strongly.) --Closeapple (talk) 22:22, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Please delete File Not Free[edit]

File is not free and can be checked via Google Search..Please delete--ابوهايدي (talk) 03:46, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

File:الحوثي.jpg
File Not Free

PUFs at Wikipedia[edit]

Hi Stefan

Not sure whether you are more active here or at En Wiki, so leaving this here. I see you have previously had run-ins with User:StanTheMan87 at En Wiki re dubious non-free use rationales. That user name is now blocked but he's back and being as obnoxious as ever as User:StanMan87. Not really sure how to proceed as I do not have the time to get into the slanging match that will inevitably ensue if I file a sockpuppet report. Your thoughts?--ukexpat (talk) 13:56, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

South Korea[edit]

Fair enough, I agree that if the cite is wrong, you should revert my change. But, if you know the cite is wrong, then you also need to fix it -- otherwise other people are going to waste time making the same mistake I did. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:21, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Right. There are also various other rules in {{PD-South Korea}} which seem to indicate that works remain in the public domain if the copyright expired before the law was changed in 1987 and 2013. The rules seem to be a bit complex... --Stefan4 (talk) 14:34, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
I don't understand the 1976 date in {{PD-South Korea}}. The rule before 1987 was thirty years, so any work after 1957 would still be under copyright in 1987 and again in 2013, even if the creator died in the same year. I don't read Korean, so I can't help with this, but the fact that the template and the summary don't match is creating problems -- I just closed a DR where one party quoted the template and the other, the summary. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 17:48, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
The Japanese copyright act of 1899 (s:ja:著作権法 (明治三十二年法律第三十九号), article 23) originally gave a 10-year term for photographs. South Korea was a Japanese colony from 1910 to 1945 (see w:Korea under Japanese rule) and might have used the same or a similar copyright law during the Japanese rule. Assuming that the 10-year term was still in use until the law was changed in 1987, this gives a 1976 cut-off date. Maybe this is what happened, and this would then explain the text in the template. There is some discussion about the photograph term on the template talk page. --Stefan4 (talk) 18:03, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

File:Gaohuaide 1797.jpg[edit]

Commons-emblem-issue.svg File:Gaohuaide 1797.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 | 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)‎ | +/−

Timmyshin (talk) 22:04, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Nachricht[edit]

https://de.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Benutzerin_Diskussion:Itti&diff=prev&oldid=135716892

Bitte den Inhalt umgehend löschen lassen! Bitte die Wikipedia-Admins um Hilfe. Ich kann sowas nicht, da meine IP-Adressen-Gruppe gesperrt ist.

--84.151.148.166 17:19, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

I am not an administrator at German Wikipedia, so I can't delete someone's profane statement about User:Itti. However, I see that Itti is an administrator on German Wikipedia, so she should be able to delete that revision herself if necessary. --Stefan4 (talk) 17:31, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Japanese toys[edit]

Hi - I read your comment on copyright of Japanese toys in the US here: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Village_pump/Copyright/Archive/2013/05

And was wondering if your insight is relevant for this discussion? https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/Files_in_Category:Aibo

File:May-Britt og Edvard Moser.jpeg[edit]

If you are a reviewer, can you pass or file a DR on this image? Maybe the Nobel committee created this image but I don't know. Best Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 05:51, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

The medal was made by Erik Lindberg (1873-1966). It should be obvious that NTNU isn't the copyright holder to that medal. I have no idea where the photograph comes from. --Stefan4 (talk) 15:06, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the reply. Best Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 01:53, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for reverting [6][edit]

Red Kitten 01.jpg

That was just weird.

GRuban (talk) 21:55, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Based on the text added to the page and the IP's block summary, it seems to be Wikinger who vandalised the page. See w:WP:WIKINGER for further information. --Stefan4 (talk) 22:03, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

File:Siretel.jpg[edit]

Pay attention to copyright
File:Siretel.jpg has been marked as a possible copyright violation. Wikimedia Commons only accepts free content—that is, images and other media files that can be used by anyone, for any purpose. Traditional copyright law does not grant these freedoms, and unless noted otherwise, everything you find on the web is copyrighted and not permitted here. For details on what is acceptable, please read Commons:Licensing. You may find Commons:Copyright rules useful. You can ask questions about Commons policies in Commons:Help desk.

The file you added may soon be deleted. If you believe this file is not a copyright violation, please explain why on the file's talk page.


Afrikaans | العربية | Asturianu | Azərbaycanca | Беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | Български | Català | Čeština | Dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | Zazaki | Ελληνικά | English | Español | فارسی | Suomi | Français | Galego | עברית | Magyar | Հայերեն | Italiano | 日本語 | 한국어 | Македонски | മലയാളം | Malti | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | Norsk nynorsk | Norsk bokmål | Polski | Português | Português do Brasil | Română | Русский | Slovenčina | Slovenščina | Svenska | ไทย | Türkçe | Tiếng Việt | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−

1989 16:55, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Erinaceus europaeus harilik siil 02 estonia.JPG The Hedgehog Prize
In Estonian mythology, hedgehog is considered one of the most clever animals. So this prize is for advice, which I could not think up myself. Taivo (talk) 19:38, 15 December 2014 (UTC)