Your tagging of an image I recently uploaded
- I personally question the purpose of having a series of almost identical (and bad) shots of the same person, or of cropped-and-tweaked duplicates. It is better to have quality, rather than quantity of photographs... That is why I try to spot duplicates and tag them as such. But if you're convinced you did the right thing and the community supports you, then I must have been wrong. --AtonX 07:50, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
Deletion of Image:Ovecka.png
Hi AtonX, I would like to ask what documentation I need to provide for you to reinstate the above picture. It is the official mascot of the town of Mošovce, and thus, I think, should be in the public domain (as per the laws of Slovakia). More info at www.mosovce.sk. Thanks for your answer. 22.214.171.124 15:43, 28 May 2008 (UTC) (Peterret)
P.S. You can also respond on my Slovak talk page PeterRet.
P.S.2: The permission to publish the Coat of Arms and Flag of Mosovce from the mayor is uploaded here. It might help to clear up the copyright status of the mascot and confirm that the town agrees to the mascot's publication on the pages of Wikipedia. Thanks, Peterret 21:32, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
- Hi PeterRet; the image Ovecka.png has been copied from the website http://www.mosovce.sk/ and, no, it is not in the public domain, contrary to your opinion. According to the website, its author is Janka Lojková and she is the holder of all rights as such, unles proven otherwise. Further to the coat of arms (Image:Mosovce.jpg), this will have to be addressed as well - i. the "permission" could have been written by anybody, a more solid proof would be necessary, and ii. it is a permission worded "Wikipedia-only", which itself is not a free license and does not allow to retain the image on Commons. --AtonX 23:25, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
- Hi, OK, thanks for the explanation. Yes, the author is Janka Lojkova and I have asked her for permission before placing the image on Wikipedia as shown here:
- ahoj peto,
- jaj vela informácii naraz...ale všetko zvládneme, aj s tvojou pomocou...tlačiť to určite dam, len ešte treba na to chvílku času...aby som to upravila...ovečku bez mena daj kludne na wiki...budem len rada, ak sa aj tam mošovce ešte viac zviditeľnia :)
- ak by ta este daco napadlo, kludne mi napiš...viac hlav viac rozumu a napadov :)
- som rada, že sa ti tam pači...daj si na seba velký pozor, nech sa ti volaco nestane :(
- budem držat palce...
- zatial papa
- and here:
- Ahoj Peťo,
- dakujem ti za všetky tie súbory, s objemom schranky si nerob ťažkú hlavu, je to v pohode :)
- Inak sa ospravedlnujem, zabudla som sa Ti podakovať za to, že súhlasís s upravou Tvojej práce, ako aj za to, že si našu m-ovcu dal na wiki :) dakujeeeeeeeeeeeeeeem :)
- pozerala som si tvoje foto USA...už viem kam pojdem ked budem velkaaaaaaaaaa...na hawai :) tam muselo byt teda krááááááááásne.........normalne som z toho mimo :)
- prajem krásny dník
- However, I understand that such proof is easily falsifiable and thus probably insufficient. Therefore I would like to ask you, what is the correct procedure and which documents are necessary to be able to upload the picture back to Wikipedia, and hopefully solve the issue with the Coat of Arms and Flag in the process. If you have an e-mail, I can send you the mails with the permissions.
- Thanks and take care :)
- Peterret 02:43, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
Please read w:sk:Wikipédia:Publikácia diela predtým publikovaného mimo Wikipédie on general issues, and w:sk:Wikipédia:OTRS on how to send a proof on release of a free work. This has to be sent by the author (not you). Be warned, however (and warn the author as well), that releasing a logo as free work means, anybody can use it under any circumstance, for non-commercial and commercial purposes, in the original or derivative form. This might not be to the city's liking. Also, if the city commissioned the logo from the author, it is possible that the agreement includes provisions which reserve the right of the city to use the logo, and the artist does no longer have the right to authorise its free use (free as beer and free as speech). --AtonX 15:07, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
There seems to be a problem regarding the description and/or licensing of this particular file. It has been found that you've added in the image's description only a Template that's not a license and although it provides useful informations about the image, it's not a valid license. Could you please resolve this problem, adding the license in the image linked above? You can edit the description page and change the text. Uploading a new version of the file does not change the description of the file. This page may give you more hints on which license to choose. Thank you.