This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
I'd like to point out that the uploads regarding them were done and no editors warned me about it. You're the only one who pointed it out after you flagged four of them for potential violations yesterday. Ominae (talk) 05:04, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
Excuse me, but I don't understand why I risk to be blocked! It's clear I make mistakes with files copyright. But as you can see I upload many pics. A part a possibility to make mistake, I add Gundam images because I have seen other pics already there so I was thinking no problems with copyright. The second the same, in my evaluation was good but wasn't ok and I accept the cancellation. What I consider exagerate is the risk to be blocked. You have to block people who upload with negative intentions, not a casual mistake. I hope you understand my point of view. --Davide Mauro (talk) 23:27, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
Wikimedia Commons takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.--Yuraily Lic (talk) 00:25, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
You've been here two weeks and have made 2,000 edits, all deletion requests. You have contributed nothing of your own. Nor are your deletion requests showing much understanding of complex situations. I am rather disturbed to see that you are now "warning" other editors and threatening blocks! Andy Dingley (talk) 09:28, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
Wikimedia Commons takes copyright violations very seriously. Deletion requests are contributions to Wikimedia Commons. And it ’s the administrators who make the final decisions about them. --Yuraily Lic (talk) 09:39, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
Why I risk my account to be blocked? The files you put for deletion were uploaded on flickr with the cc-by-2.0, which is accepted here in commons. I did it very simple :) --Manami (talk) 00:10, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
Wikimedia Commons takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.--Yuraily Lic (talk) 00:24, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
Also, if you're bulk deleting files for the same reason (such as copyright issues with toys of Thomas the Tank Engine), please consder making bulk deletions and listing them together. Otherwise it looks as if you're simply trying to use volume to overwhelm other editors' ability to reply. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:19, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
Of course Japan has FoP, you are even linking to our page on the topic. It's not a particularly free access to such content and rarely of use at Commons, but that is not the same as making a false statement that there is, "No FoP in Japan".
Hello, Rebirth10. I'm one of the users. I'm not in a position to determine the borderline for deletion. About the borderline for deletion, please ask the admins or ask at Com:Village pump. --Yuraily Lic (talk) 05:59, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
せっかくご回答いただいたのに申し訳ないのですが、再度お聞きします。そちら様が言うように"線引きを決める立場ではない"というのであれば、何を基準にして削除依頼を出されたのでしょうか。この二次作品は良いけどあの二次作品はダメとか、そういうわかりやすい理由でも構わないのですが、弊トークページにはかなりキツめの警告文も記されており、そちら様がどういう基準で削除依頼の対処をされたのか疑問に思っております。ライセンスの問題でしょうか。であればその点についてご解説頂きたく存じます。--Rebirth10 (talk) 16:52, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
About requesting deletion of photos with explanatory text
Excuse me. It is called TR15336300101. It seems that the Japanese questions are answered, so I will write in Japanese. A number of requests for deletion have been made for photos with an explanation board of historical spots Commons: Deletion requests / Files in Category: Historical information signs in Japan. I wrote it on the discussion page, but there was no answer, so I came here. I also read Commons: Secondary Works, but for the following reasons, I don't think there is a problem with copyright. The contents of the explanation board are explanations of historical facts, which cannot be said to be particularly original, and the local government of the work is clearly stated. Also, the explanation itself is aimed at enlightenment and tourism so that you can get to know these spots well, so there should be no problem. Please give a sincere answer.
Thank you for your reply. I am very surprised there is a copyright in one sentence. Is it written in the American copyright law that "A single sentence has copyright"? . I believe that you do not have an expanded interpretation of the law. Is it better for the local government to declare public domain for highly public information? There are other photos that I have updated that have an explanatory board, so you can delete them all.Wikimediaファイル一覧 It's very disappointing as a personal feeling. I've lost much of my motivation to upload to Wikimedia commons.--TR15336300101 (talk) 12:34, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
Goodbye, Wikipedia Commons and a guardian of the law. Unfortunately, I will never upload photos to the Wikipedia Commons again. Thank you.--TR15336300101 (talk) 23:13, 24 August 2019 (UTC)
You created your account only 2 month ago, but you looks like you understands lot of rules and process of Wikimedia Commons like a veteran Wikimedian user. So, I guess you're just another sockpuppet account of G I Chandor, who performing mass deletation requests of Japanese panorama pictures. Is correct or what? --110.165.187.14915:49, 24 August 2019 (UTC)
Autopatroller
Hi, Yuraily Lic. You have made a lot of good work and your edits do not need patrolling anymore, so I just made you autopatroller. Thank you for your good work! Taivo (talk) 14:46, 27 August 2019 (UTC)
While I certainly appreciate being thanked, aren't you overdoing it a bit? Please remember that I must clear each one from my notifications individually -- perhaps you could keep it to one a day? . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:28, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
Hello, Clodion. I guess that there are the images of copyrighted in that category. If you find a doubtful file, it is better to submit a deletion request. --Yuraily Lic (talk) 16:47, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
地方政府の著作権
中央政府スポーツ庁のcc-0は認めるが、秋田県等地方政府のcc-0は認めないと考えるのはおかしいと思います。秋田県関係の削除されたファイルにつきましては、秋田県庁第一庁舎知事室で秋田県職員が撮影したものがほとんどです。Ntsctalk (talk) 01:09, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
Hello, Ntsctalk. The usage rule of copyrighted works is not decided by me or you. The copyright holder decides that.
Akita Prefectural Government does not permit free use of the copyrighted works posted on their website [2].
Japan Sports Agency (it is under the Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology) permits the use of copyrighted works by rules compatible with CC-BY 4.0 [3]. (You wrote CC-0 for Sports Agency's works, but it's not correct. For the two files you uploaded I fixed the license. File:Daichi Suzuki.jpg and File:Rui Hachimura Sports Agency.jpg)
And, if you still have questions about the copyrights of the Government of Japan and municipal governments in Japan, I think it's better to ask at Commons:井戸端. --Yuraily Lic (talk) 08:31, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
Bandell Strachan Disney Fairytale Wedding 1992
You recommended the removal of my photograph from our wedding in 1992. It is my photograph, not being used for financial purposes, I do not understand why I wasn't given an opportunity to rebut the suggestion to remove it? The people in the photograph are myself and my husband. The picture with Mickey and Minnie Mouse was released on the national AP wire which was picked up by many news organizations back in 1992. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Simplyfound (talk • contribs) 01:19, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
I understand it is somehow your business here to delete as many alleged copyright violations as possible, but I urge you to assume good faith before nominating files like these:
File:Deniz_0332.jpg for deletion, citing as reason that it is not allowed to make a copy of a photo in Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Deniz_0332.jpg
The metadata shows it's created using a CanoScan 9000F, which is a photo scanner. The uploader claims this photo is his own work, it is probably an old analog photo which he took before digital photography.
on second thoughts, the user who has uploaded this photo, has had all his uploads deleted or nominated for deletion because of copyright violations. So I understand it's suspicious... --Brinkie (talk) 16:04, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
The 1st time I had executive checkup at St. Lukes under PMA President Homobono Calleja, 1992, I was cleared 100% despite my 120 pulse rate on Sundays and extreme circling of vision unexplained by my client Doctor; on 2017, I did vomit 21 times on on Easter Sunday and I experience the circling of brain 7 times as my brother forced me to be treated by Dr. Charlotte Chiong, multi-awarded EENT at Malolos; baffled, she took off my only medicine and gave me vitamin; I contradicted her, but she said I am clear; I do not drink any medicine; for as the only recognized Category:Psychics of the Philippines I am a Category:Roman Catholic mystics - Category:Mystics from the Philippines;
Hello Dear , about today's speedy deletion i want to cancel it , because i need time to fix it, and i think i had warning previously that i have seven days,
and it's not free use , it's Fair Use unfortunately i'm still new here so i couldn't change it to [Fair Use] Content i provided a Source and Author and Artist to the Content In other words i think i have right to use it fairly in other wikis as it used previously as Fair Use in English Wikpedia.Sakura emad (talk) 14:35, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
Hello, you deleted two photos for no real reason, here are the 2 phtos: File: Nelson Mandela Trophy.jpg and File: Mother Teresa Trophy.jpg.
I take the example of "File: Mother Teresa Trophy.jpg" the photo comes from the facebook page "VIVA WORLD CUP LTD" (created in 2019) except that this account has absolutely nothing official and the picture does not belong to that person. For "File: Nelson Mandela Trophy.jpg" if I remember correctly, it's a fan's blog, ditto the photo does not belong to him. The real VIVA World Cup account was deleted a long time ago, there is just an NF-Noard page on facebook and twitter, there again they are abandoned. The NF-Board no longer exists since 2013. The 2 trophies were created by a French artist.
Second important point: Regarding copyright, each contributor is subject to the law of his country. So from my country's point of view, there is no problem. Fair use is a case law used in the United States (but absent in most other countries, particularly French-speaking) which tolerates the reproduction of works normally protected by copyright. Each Wikipedia is free to define its own policy, I cannot be subject to English-speaking or other decisions, rules or laws. Photos can be stored and shared on the French-speaking wikipedia without worrying about being deleted. I therefore ask you to put back his 2 photos, please.
You are wrong, the 2 photos can be posted on the article VIVA World Cup the French version wikipedia, while respecting the English version which will not have its 2 photos on the article VIVA World Cup. Hope the second point will help you understand better. Cordially. Durante Inferno (talk) 17:57, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
Hello, Yuraily Lic. As I could say it before, the photos which I besides modify, do not belong to the person of the blog [[4]] (he himself must have resume it on a site that no exists) nor to the person on the facebook page [[5]], they have nothing official and does not belong to them. The photos I edit are mine. These are photos that have always been free, they have been shared everywhere and there has never been a request for protection regardless of the sites, newspapers or even the creator or the NF-Board. There has never been a ban on sharing his photos, they have always been free, plus they are useful for one of Wikipedia's projects. French laws go against wikimedia commons rules, its images are made for French wikipedia. If wikimedia commons which is basic English-speaking poses a problem then as much to create a "wikimedia commons 100% Francophone" which could be a real solution for those who wish to improve various articles in French, even wikimedia commons in other languages for their projects, which will be aligned with the laws of their country and not that of another. I will not bother you with that anymore, I will make a request (for a Francophone wikimedia) to avoid this kind of absurdity. Cordially. --Durante Inferno (talk) 18:01, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
Esse texto está escrito em português por que eu não sei inglês
A imagem do call of duty podera ser removida por direitos autorais,mas as imagens do jogo call of duty mobile está para domínio publico,basta jogar o call of duty mobile para saber que qualquer pessoa pode usar essas imagens — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ryan Trassante (talk • contribs) 23:41, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
Hello! This picture I took from an emulator. I believe that is from my own work. Sorry for anyhting! Please talk to me if I violate any copyrights — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ryugold (talk • contribs) 07:28, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
Copyright violations notices in error, please amend and take notice Anne Jones is the copyright holder of images of theatre productions in question
Dear Yuraily Lic, you have flagged copyright violations for various works owned by ToadShow Pty Ltd ABN 63 073 488 114 a company which is co-owned by Anne Jones who is the chair of ToadShow and the senior executive authority and therefore responsible for the company and its works, and in so being, is authorised to upload ToadShow works to Wikimedia Commons and assign Creative Commons status. Your flagging of several uploads by Anne Jones referred to here https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Annepatriciajones is in error. Please take steps to countermand these judgements (presumably made by you without full knowledge of their status and the status of Anne Jones as copyright holder).Annepatriciajones (talk) 01:05, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
Are all screenshot taken from you tube copyright infringement I ask this out of curiosity for I have seen long standing image taken from youtube on wikipedia without anyone marking copyright violation so I really thought its ok if I gave the credit to the owner and the source urlLuwanglinux (talk) 17:13, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
Hello, Luwanglinux. Please see Commons:YouTube files. The same is true for screenshots from YouTube files.
That YouTube file has CC license. But, it seems to be a collection of several videos. The licenses of the original videos in the YouTube file are unknown. So, I can't decide if it's OK or not. --Yuraily Lic (talk) 06:52, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
Hi. I think you should consider becoming an Admin. From what I can see you know your stuff and you are polite to all users - which is a very good trait to have. Give it some thought, we could use the help Gbawden (talk) 11:23, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
Thank you, Gbawden. But, becoming an admin is a heavy burden for me. I would like to contribute to Wikimedia Commons as a user.
Why delete a usefull image in a language you do not speak?
Hi, I saw you requested deletion of my photograph of Slagroomversteviger. It is used for Dutch wikipedia, in a new article (in Dutch). You did not provide any information why it should be deleted. Thus, I have no idea why you made the request. This is rather rude and (even worse~!) unhelpful. Ietskleiner (talk) 21:35, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
Those satellite views are good photos. But, it's not good to plagiarize. Please indicate the correct source of the photos. --Yuraily Lic (talk) 05:24, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
Yuraily Lic, I have uploaded a new version of File:Imphal city satellite view.jpg, with source URL. It was a screenshot from Google Earth. Please verify it, then inform whether it is OK
Stop Spamming files that are within the copyrights I have attributed them to
You clearly just spam report without looking into the source files. You have reported numerous files that belong to Tasnim and Mehr news agencies. They both STATE 4.0 Creative Commons in the bottom of their web page. As for the other images, the bottom of the page I have used indicated that the use of their images and content is free as long as you mention the source however this is written in Farsi so you obviously can’t read Farsi, but that doesn’t excuse the fact that Tasnim and Mehr have written the Creative Commons 4.0 in English. Ali313korosh (talk) 05:40, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
I have removed the no-permission tags from some of your uploaded files, and added {{subst:Tasnim/subst}}, {{subst:Mehr/subst}}, or {{LicenseReview}}. Please check them if my modifications are correct. --Yuraily Lic (talk) 01:15, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
Pictures I uploaded are public domain.
There are many other public domain works that are already uploaded on Wiki commons.
It is not fair you delete them.
1. Murals : they do not have copyright. There are no authors. It's drawn 1500years ago inside a tomb. There are lots of other pictures already on Wiki commons.
2. images inside a book : The author of these books do NOT have copyright of original drawings. They used it because it's public domain.
They are not the copyright holder.
3.One that provide source : In Korea, we already mark if it's allowed to share postings and pictures in it when you post it.
If you can right click and save it, it means you can share. if you can't right click, it means the writer locked it.
Hello, 49.173.9.101. There's no indication of who you are and which files you are talking about. So I don't know what you are talking about. If you have any objections to the deletion of the files, please contact Commons:Undeletion requests. --Yuraily Lic (talk) 22:58, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
Please participate in the Universal Code of Conduct consultation on Commons
Hi,
Hope you are well. I have seen that you have recently active in Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems. This page is currently the only page where user problems (conduct issues, and other unacceptable behavior, etc.) get reported.
I am working on facilitating the Universal Code of Conduct enforcement discussion on Commons which focuses users’ conduct. That is why I am inviting to participate in the discussion to give your valuable opinion.
You can do so by participating in the public on-wiki discussion on Commons: Commons:Universal Code of Conduct consultation. There are a few questions regarding enforcement you can answer. Please feel free to include anything you find relevant.
The survey has a different set of questions, and you can response to them anonymously. It is not a long survey and should take around 10 minutes to complete.
I want you to know that your input is very valuable and it will help to us better shape the UCoC enforcement pathways for our beloved Commons community. I hope you participate. Please let me know if you have any questions. Thank you! Wikitanvir (WMF) (talk) 08:34, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
Andy Sophie
Bonjour, je suis scandalisé par le blocage de mon compte. Cette photo m'apartiens car je l'ai fait moi même et elle proviens de Foot de l'île 974 dont je suis le Community Manager --Dadam97490 (talk) 17:02, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
Hello,
this message is regarding the alleged violation made by Yuraily Lic, of posting photos on wikimedia commons by me.
Trabantfully is my ligin in a sandbox on Wikipedia, I used it to create an article about my own artistic work about Tomasz Matuszak.
In other words, Trabantfully is Tomasz Matuszak. The article by Tomasz Matuszak exists on Wikipedia since yesterday,
I'm new to Wikipedia and I don't know how to remove an article from sendbox yet, but I'll try to do it to. All photos posted on Wikimedia Commons belong to me.
Domain www.tomaszmatuszak.art.pl is my official website. The domain http://www.artysci-lodzkie.pl describes my work with my consent, there are also only my photos there,
the same is with the domain http://miejmiejsce.com/assets/Uploads/12-c2.jpg. All these domains hold only photos that belong to me and I have the copyright to them.
As I stated earlier all the photos that i have uploaded to Wikimedia Commons are my property. There has not been a violations of any kind.
The website: http://www.tomaszmatuszak.art.pl is my official website done by me and holding images that belong only to me.
I dont know what I have to do to prove that I am not ab elephant but I am me - Tomasz Matuszak,
blocking photos that I only have copyright to, is really outrageous!!!!
I dont know who you people are but I suggest you better start thinking associate facts, in other case you will turn nazi,
Hello, User:Trabantfully. Thank you for the message. I've read your messages here and there.
Are you Tomasz Matuszak? You didn't write it anywhere, did you? If it's not written, everyone will assume that those files were uploaded without author's permission. Neither I nor the administrators are responsible.
If you will upload them again, I think it would be good to write "These images are available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license." near the photos on your site.
(I like your photos. Unfortunately, they were deleted.)
By the way, let me confirm to make sure.
You are an artist.
Photos uploaded to Wikimedia Commons can be used by anyone for free. Commercial use is also possible. It means that your photographic works could be printed and sold by someone else.
Regarding the photos I uploaded about the Subaru BRZ
Hello! There is an Israeli site called cartube that have good pictures so I asked them where their pictures came from and they gave me a link to the site from which I uploaded the pictures and they told me that this site has no copyright
Is it enough? Heziyehonatan (talk) 04:01, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems. This is in relation to an issue with which you may have been involved.
After I saw them, the uploader added the link to the page that describes the license. [6][7] No wonder I don't notice, because there were no link when I saw them.
I konw. All 3 are in the ticket, but you just tagged 2. That's why I didn't name the other. I've already received confirmation of the license. Fixing... --Ganímedes (talk) 18:26, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
Hey, I am so sorry for the copyrighted photos. But there are almost no photos of Emma Chamberlain and they are not really good. The ones that already exist are also copyrighted so I thought it was ok. Also, the last photo is a photo of my grandfather with former French President François Mitterand. I believe he has the right to choose the photo of him that he wants on his Wikipedia page.
Thanks,
Germinal31 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Germinal 31 (talk • contribs) 21:50, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
Hello, Germinal 31. Those already in Category:Emma Chamberlain are files that have a license acceptable to Wikimedia Commons. Your grandfather is a fine man. But even if your grandfather is in the photo, it does not mean that he is the copyright holder or the author. Please understand. --Yuraily Lic (talk) 22:50, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
I am in smog
I have uploaded multiple files to Wikimedia commons. But there are mistakes in licensing. I am in smog how to use the license. Which license will I use if I :
Metadata is the data that is recorded in the image file when a photo is taken. In the metadata, information such as the date of shooting and the camera used to take the photo are recorded.
For example, File:Statue of Liberty 7.jpg, you can see "Metadata" at the bottom of the page. There you can see the metadata information "Camera manufacturer: SONY, Camera model: DSC-N1, Date and time of data generation: 15:45, 8 August 2010".
When a photo is posted on the Internet, for example on Instagram or Facebook and so on, the metadata can disappear or change. So, if other users see a photo uploaded to Wikimedia Commons with missing or changed metadata, they may suspect that the photo is not the uploader's work.
Next, about resolutions.
Simply put, it's the number of dots that make up digital photos. On the files page of Wikimedia Commons, it is below the picture.
Photos taken with recent cameras and smartphones have high resolution (in other words, many dots). So for low resolution (= fewer dots) photo, other users may suspect that it will be a photo stolen from other site. (The size of the photos may be reduced when posted on the website.)
It is better to upload photos with high resolution and metadata left. You upload the photo you took as it is, and the photo will have high resolution and metadata. In this case, the license can be any of CC0, CC-BY, or CC-BY-SA as allowed by the Wikimedia Commons. (Please see Com:Licensing)
Thank you. I have understood the metadata and resolution clearly. Now, tell me while uploading a file at Wikimedia commons, where will I add the metadata? --Jejsiguoa (User talk:Jejsiguoa 03:43 26 February 2021 (UTC)
]]
There is no need to add metadata at all. Are you thinking of tampering someone else's photo and uploading it to Wikimedia Commons? If so, it shouldn't. If not, please forgive my bad premonition. --Yuraily Lic (talk) 22:10, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
All of these files are my works. But due to low resolution and metadata (only Orientation:0) these have been nominated for deletion. I wanna add metadata. Otherwise, these files may be deleted.
Ok. It's confirmed. Most of the photo was from my YouTube channel. I will try to reload it with the URLs. I thought that these are from my channel, so I am the author. But now I realized YouTube sources are needed also. Let them be deleted. I'll try later after deleting. What about this decision? --Jejsiguoa (User talk:Jejsiguoa) 10:02, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
You asked me questions. Today, I realized its purpose. Don't upload other people's work as your own. Fake files uploaded by you will waste other users' and administrators' time. --Yuraily Lic (talk) 12:36, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
Uploading incorrectly licensed files or plagiarized images will bring discredit to Wikimedia Commons and Wikipedia. Please do not upload such files. --Yuraily Lic (talk) 09:22, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
I have uploaded a new version of File:Kanchenjunga from Jalpaiguri 2.jpg. It may be some smaller in size than the previous. And as I realized my mistakes, I would like to advise you in this matter:
Hello I am sorry for the copyright issue, I was so much hesitating before uploading this picture and I had a very good chat with an editor yesterday (see below) suggesting to try with a different licence. i don't want to get blocked and most important I don't want to violate any copyright. here are the messages :
Hello Mosbatho you sent me a warning for a possible copyright violation about this file : Coda Magazine cover.jpg
I would like your help about this because I am working on a Draft on Wikipedia about a band who is on the cover of this French Magazine called "Coda Digital". I uploaded it and added it to my draft but withdrawed it immediately from my contribution wondering about possible copyright issues. This magazine stopped all his activities in 2009 and I tried to contact the journalists and the director but they are impossible to reach as the media doesn't exist anymore. What do you think? Can I upload it again as nobody will claim the copyright for it now?
Thank you very much for your help ! Naufalle Al Wahab 21:17, 1 March 2021 (CET)
Hello, good to hear from you! I believe you that this image is a valuable contribution to your article work, however, there are copyright issues. Well, the magazine cover is certainly still copyrighted, even though the magazine has not been published since 2009. So this cover can be published under a free "Creative Commons". --Mosbatho (talk) 20:33, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
Thank you very much for your quick reply this good advice. I didn't think of the free Creative Commons for this file. I will do so. thanks again for your help.
Please keep in mind that such Creative Commons licenses do not automatically. I hope you can complete your article anyway. --Mosbatho (talk) 21:13, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
Is there anyway to fix this?
Naufalle Al Wahab 10:39, 2 March 2021 (CET)
Hello, Till. I think that files that aren't clearly the uploader's own works and aren't given the source, should be tagged "Source missing". --Yuraily Lic (talk) 10:20, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
That site does not appear to be official. I can't determine if that textbook is copyrighted or not. It is your responsibility to change the copyright tag of this file. --Yuraily Lic (talk) 16:13, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
Copyright in the People's Republic of China is difficult. I can't determine the copyright status of this photo. It is your responsibility to change the copyright tag of this file. --Yuraily Lic (talk) 16:13, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
This looks like a screenshot from a video game. If the video game is copyrighted, then the copyright belongs to game's creator, even if you took the screenshot.
For example, you can write "The year the photo was taken is before xxxx (because the year of his death is xxxx)." The point is to provide evidence that the photo is old, the copyright is not valid and it is in the public domain, and the license is appropriate. There are also templates. Template:Other date --Yuraily Lic (talk) 14:49, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
This photo was taken before 1959, because the year of 李濟深's death was 1959. I understood this way. If my understanding of it is correct, I think that the license is OK. --Yuraily Lic (talk) 06:39, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Comment User:Yuraily_Licを拝見すると、en-1とのこと。![[1]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Basyaku_Kaido_10_Water_place_for_horse.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
![[6]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Peter_John_Watson_sailing.jpg&action=history){kind=link}
![[7]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Peter_John_Watson_Elbrus_summit_6.jpg&action=history){kind=link}
![[9]](https://zh.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Getting_to_Know_Taiwan_History_Textbook.jpg){kind=link}
