User talk:BDS2006

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


Welcome to Wikimedia Commons, BDS2006!

-- 05:18, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Tip: Categorizing images[edit]

Afrikaans | العربية | беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | català | čeština | dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | Ελληνικά | English | Esperanto | español | فارسی | suomi | français | galego | עברית | magyar | íslenska | italiano | 日本語 | ქართული | 한국어 | македонски | മലയാളം | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | norsk bokmål | polski | português | português do Brasil | română | русский | slovenčina | slovenščina | српски / srpski | svenska | українська | Tiếng Việt | 中文 | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−


Hello, BDS2006!

Tip: Add categories to your images

Thanks a lot for contributing to the Wikimedia Commons! Here's a tip to make your uploads more useful: Why not add some categories to describe them? This will help more people to find and use them.

Here's how:

1) If you're using the UploadWizard, you can add categories to each file when you describe it. Just click "more options" for the file and add the categories which make sense:

Uploadwizard-categories.png

2) You can also pick the file from your list of uploads, edit the file description page, and manually add the category code at the end of the page.

[[Category:Category name]]

For example, if you are uploading a diagram showing the orbits of comets, you add the following code:

[[Category:Astronomical diagrams]]
[[Category:Comets]]

This will make the diagram show up in the categories "Astronomical diagrams" and "Comets".

When picking categories, try to choose a specific category ("Astronomical diagrams") over a generic one ("Illustrations").

Thanks again for your uploads! More information about categorization can be found in Commons:Categories, and don't hesitate to leave a note on the help desk.

CategorizationBot (talk) 10:41, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

File:Burj_Al_Arab_(2).jpg[edit]

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

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


Afrikaans | العربية | 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 | Shqip | Српски / srpski | Svenska | Türkçe | українська | Tiếng Việt | 中文 | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−

84.61.131.15 20:18, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

File:Emirates Towers.jpg[edit]

Commons-emblem-issue.svg File:Emirates Towers.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 | Shqip | Српски / srpski | Svenska | Türkçe | українська | Tiếng Việt | 中文 | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−

84.61.160.67 18:57, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Elektro-L images[edit]

Hello! Regarding File:The Earth seen from Elektro-L No. 1 with black background.jpg and others like it taken by the Elektro-L satellite, where is it on their website stated that images are released under CC0 Public Domain? I'm not seeing any such release. Considering that Roscosmos does not by default release images under a free license, this needs to be documented on the images. Thanks for your help. Huntster (t @ c) 02:17, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

Dear Huntster, thanks for alerting me to this. After further research, I updated the licensing info in the affected images to CC 4.0 to reflect what's stated here. There's also an interesting discussion here which indicates that the original images are in the public domain.
I wasn't going to reply here until I received official confirmation from Roscosmos, but seeing that the images have been nominated for deletion I'm sharing what I know so far and hope to have more information soon.
I have emailed several contacts at Roscosmos to verify the licensing status of their Elektro-L imagery. It's not clear if the copyright notice on NTS OMz is referring to the website itself or the image archive or both, but I've asked for clarification so we'll have the answer soon I hope.
Something that is clearly stated on their website is the following: "Where any materials on this site are republished or copied, the source of the material must be identified." This requirement has been met, so until further clarification arrives, there is no need to delete the images. We have written consent to redistribute the images with appropriate credits and that meets the minimum requirements for using copyrighted content per the instructions on Wikimedia Commons. In a worst case scenario where we assume the original images are copyrighted, the uploaded images still meet all the requirements for use on Wikimedia projects as the sources have been clearly identified which, in this case, fulfills all of the requirements of the copyright holder. There is no doubt that the images can be used on Wikipedia; the only doubt is with regards to the public domain status of Roscosmos imagery in general. And I hope to clarify that soon. --BDS2006 (talk) 22:32, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
Hi BDS. Regarding Cineviv, they appear to be a private company and have no apparent right to dictate the license of those images as CC-4.0 any more than you would. Regarding Planetary blog, I see a couple of mentions of "public domain", but in the sense they are using it, it means that the images are simply available to the public, not that the images are released from copyright. Regarding what the NTS OMz website states, that is not a statement of copyright, but a statement of how media and others should credit the images when using them under Fair Use guidelines (aka, if a media outlet uses an image, they ask for credit to appear with the image).
So, yes, the image could technically be uploaded to an individual Wikipedia website under Fair Use, but because Fair Use of images on Wikipedia only applies when no comparable freely licensed is available, again it falls afoul of our image use rules.
Perhaps Roscosmos will respond and grant use under a free license such as Creative Commons. If so, their email should be forwarded to our Commons:OTRS system so it can be properly applied to the image. However, given our interactions with Roscosmos in the past, I find such a reply highly unlikely. Huntster (t @ c) 23:46, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
It's a privilege to be learning from someone who seems to understand this issue in depth. Could you please explain what "when no comparable freely licensed is available" means? Thanks! --BDS2006 (talk) 01:21, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
Sure! I'm not well versed on all the different language sites for Wikipedia, but for the English Wikipedia, Fair Use of an image in an article is only permissible when no other image exists that is either free of copyright (Public Domain) or freely licensed (GFDL, Creative Commons, etc). So, for example, if we wanted to include a photograph of an old Soviet satellite in an article, but no private citizen was ever able to take a picture of this satellite on the ground and no freely licensed graphic image of it exists, then we could use a non-free Soviet era image or illustration under Fair Use. But, such an image would have to be uploaded to the English Wikipedia itself, not to Commons, because Commons only allows freely licensed images to be uploaded here. Hopefully that makes sense. By all means, any questions you have regarding licensing and use of images on Wikimedia sites are welcome, and I'll answer to the best of my ability. Huntster (t @ c) 12:18, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
I never realized images could be uploaded directly to Wikipedia or that the requirements would differ. That's actually quite useful to know.


I'm forwarding an email inquiring about the copyright status and attribution requirements of the Elektro-L images and the reply to that message below:
__________
Are the Elektro-L images for the public, or copyright? Who should I give credit to?
__________


My name is Andrey Dedukh, I'm working for FEC SRC Planeta.
Liubov S. Kramareva asked me to answer on your e-mail message.


Electro-L Images are public, but now the satellite is in partial broken mode
and our Center can't receive data with our antenna equipment.
More detailed information about Electro-L images you can receive by Tatiana
N. Burceva (SRC PLaneta, Moscow).
You can contact with her by e-mail: burc@planet.iitp.ru.


__
Sincirelly, Andrey Dedukh
Senior Software Engineer
FEC SRC Planeta
+7-924-202-14-17
__________
Russian agencies do no use the same language as NASA, but it amounts to the same. "Public" here (in this context) combined with an omission of any attribution requirements is clearly a confirmation that the Elektro-L images are effectively in the public domain. --BDS2006 (talk) 18:43, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
Sigh, I was afraid they'd do something like that. That just isn't good enough for Commons, because it is ambiguous. They would have to specifically say something like "Images from the Elektro-L satellites are released from copyright into the public domain." BDS, please understand I'm not trying to make things difficult for you, but Commons takes copyright very seriously, and something ambiguous like this can and probably will be challenged in the future if left to stand today. Huntster (t @ c) 18:56, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
I agree, it is very frustrating that they haven't explicitly stated it like that. Nonetheless, the Elektro-L imagery in particular has been treated differently from other materials coming out of Roscosmos. The images have been uploaded to a public FTP in much the same manner as NASA's public archives. The wording of their communications combined with this unique distribution method gives the appearance of an agency that is making a concerted effort to freely distribute images without restrictions of any kind.
I'm still awaiting responses to follow-up correspondence with the hope that they will say what I'm confident they tacitly mean. I really think it comes down to linguistic and cultural differences between the Anglosphere and the Russian Federation. It's almost as though "public domain" does not exist in the Russian vocabulary.
You have simply communicated your requirements and I don't take it personally at all. I have nothing but respect for the mission of Wikimedia Commons and the requirements that accompany that mission. I will continue to make every effort to extract a satisfactory statement from the relevant Russian agencies. --BDS2006 (talk) 19:47, 7 July 2015 (UTC)


Hello Huntster, I have two new email exchanges to share with you below:


Hi Tatiana,

Can you or someone at SRC Planeta help me?

I downloaded Elektro-L images from: http://eng.ntsomz.ru/electro/source_images

Are the Elektro-L images public domain or copyright?

___________________

Good day!

My name is George Parkhomenko, I work at SRC Planeta, Moscow. Tatiana Burtseva asked me to contact you on the matter of Elektro-L images that you have been asking about.

Information from russian satellite Elektro-L is collected, processed and distributed by two organisations: "NTS OMZ" and SRC "Planeta". If you are taking these images from http://ntsomz.ru web-site, than it would be more logical to credit "NTS OMZ". But I am not even sure if that is necessary, usually there is an organisation label right in the corner of such an image.

Similar images can be downloaded from our website: http://planet.rssi.ru/english/elektro/elektro_data_eng.htm.

That way or another, the images are in public access, and you are free to use them for any purpose.


-- Best regards, George Parkhomenko, SRC Planeta.




Can Elektro-L images be used on Wikipedia? How should I credit you?

Может Электро-Л изображения можно использовать в Википедии ? Как я должен кредитовать вас ?

link: http://cineviv.com/earth4k1.jpg

____________________

thank you for the interest of Electro-L satellite images. Electro L images are free and open data (http://electro.ntsomz.ru/), so you can use the data in Wikipedia. Electro-L data shall be published with the credit as follows:

           «Electro-L» №1 images of (collection date),
           Data owner: Federal Space Agency, Russian Federation;
           Data processed by JSC «Russian Space Systems», Russian Federation.

Best regards,


Ekaterina Goryunova Marketing Group Head of International Cooperation, Marketing and Information Department Research Center for Earth Operative Monitoring (NTs OMZ) JSC "Russian Space Systems" Tel.+7 (495) 280 72 24 e-mail: gorunova_es@ntsomz.ru; marketing@ntsomz.ru www.ntsomz.ru

____________________


--BDS2006 (talk) 03:48, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

Hi BDS. With these two replies, I feel like I could cry, lol. They are so ambiguous as to potentially be useless. "Public access" isn't a copyright statement; it just states the public can access the files. "Free and open data" essentially means the same thing, but may be enough. Really, a person of authority needs to states that the files are either copyrighted All Rights Reserved, or "Free from copyright", or available with attribution. Essentially, which of the following license templates applies: {{PD-user|NTs OMZ}}, {{Copyrighted free use}}, or {{Attribution|NTs OMZ}}. Personally, I'm thinking the Attribution template will likely be the best fit for them. I can ask over at Commons:Village pump/Copyright‎ and see what they think about that second email. Huntster (t @ c) 06:35, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
Hello Huntster, thank you for looking into this. I'm still in communication with Roscosmos and its affiliates. I thought I should let you know that the images were abruptly deleted early this morning which affected several articles on Wikipedia. It seems needlessly destructive for someone to remove the images without comment when written permission to use them on Wikipedia has been explicitly granted by the relevant organizations. I checked the deletion log and it certainly makes me look quite negligent; it's unfortunate that none of our discussion here was reflected there. --BDS2006 (talk) 03:51, 12 July 2015 (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.
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 | Shqip | Српски / srpski | Svenska | Türkçe | українська | Tiếng Việt | 中文 | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−

Affected:

And also:

Yours sincerely, Huntster (t @ c) 21:17, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. All of the publicly available information that I can find indicates that the images can be used freely so long as the appropriate sources are credited. That requirement has been met. I will update you when I have more information. For now, all requirements per Wikimedia Commons and NTs OMZ have been met. --BDS2006 (talk) 22:55, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
That's not how copyright and licensing work. Being "freely available" or "publicly released" on the internet is completely different from being freely licensed or released from copyright. Huntster (t @ c) 23:22, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
Yes, you are right. The wording on NTs OMZ seems to invite fair use without mentioning any licensing terms. Is that necessarily a problem? Hopefully I'll have some clarification soon, but your experience with them makes me pessimistic that we'll get a clear answer. I'll definitely share any responses that I receive though. --BDS2006 (talk) 00:36, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
And I apologise for splitting the discussion between this section and the one above. I saw this one first and responded, before seeing that the more substantive reply was above. Huntster (t @ c) 12:04, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
In light of our productive discussion regarding the status of the Roscosmos images in question, the deletion request should have been updated (to make any deletion decision as well-informed as possible) or removed altogether. Considering the permissions that have been explicitly granted by the appropriate agencies, any secondary discussion regarding the specific language of the licensing terms has been rendered moot. Any act of deletion that is ignorant of those permissions can be treated as an error resulting from incomplete or inaccurate information. Any act of deletion that is made with full awareness of those permissions would be inappropriate at best and could even be treated as a form of vandalism. As always, I look forward to your take on this matter. --BDS2006 (talk) 18:00, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
Well, it is certainly not vandalism. It is entirely appropriate for an image to be deleted on Commons if questions regarding copyright status have not been resolved after a period of time. Otherwise a potential copyright violation may persist indefinitely. The images can always be restored if and when an acceptable copyright statement is provided. Huntster (t @ c) 09:28, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
You are the one deciding what constitutes an "acceptable" copyright statement and you have already exhibited a clear bias in this matter. Isn't that problematic? --BDS2006 (talk) 19:54, 10 August 2015 (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.
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 | Shqip | Српски / srpski | Svenska | Türkçe | українська | Tiếng Việt | 中文 | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−

Affected:


Yours sincerely, Ras67 (talk) 23:23, 16 October 2016 (UTC)