User talk:Bernd.Brincken

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

Commercial use of Commons Images

[edit]

You said,

"I never understand anyway why WP only wants to present pictures that can be used commercially, but that's a different story."

Here's my reasoning -- as a repository for images for WMF projects, Commons has a certain value. But it's broad value and recognition comes from its use as a repository for images for all purposes. In my own case, three different off-WMF users have used my images taken from Commons, all for commercial use.

As another example, Business Week -- a major US weekly magazine, circulation around one million -- needed images of fifty USA cities to illustrate a web-article. Most, maybe all, came from Commons.

I think that Commons is much richer because those of us who provide images like the thought that they may see wide use, use that requires the commercial tag. And that's what has made it

"a database of 7,960,466 freely usable media files to which anyone can contribute."

     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:43, 25 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jim, thanks for your comment - before replying, shouldn't we find a place where others can join the discussion? I asked the same question already here: Commons_talk:Licensing#Why_must_pictures_be_commercially_usable? - At least I'd move this discussion over there, ok? --Bernd.Brincken (talk) 14:53, 25 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
So why not have "a database of 7,960,466 freely usable plus 2,465,664 non-commercially usable media files to which anyone can contribute"? The latter sounds like the favourable option to me. --Bernd.Brincken (talk) 19:12, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
File:Bengasi_court_tribune_0833.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 see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues.

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!

Magog the Ogre (talk) 17:27, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

العربية  беларуская беларуская (тарашкевіца)  ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ  বাংলা  català  čeština  dansk  Deutsch  Deutsch (Sie-Form)  Ελληνικά  English  español  euskara  فارسی  suomi  français  galego  עברית  hrvatski  magyar  հայերեն  italiano  日本語  ಕನ್ನಡ  한국어  lietuvių  latviešu  македонски  മലയാളം  मराठी  မြန်မာဘာသာ  norsk bokmål  Plattdüütsch  Nederlands  norsk  polski  português  română  русский  sicilianu  slovenčina  slovenščina  српски / srpski  svenska  ไทย  Türkçe  українська  اردو  Tiếng Việt  中文(简体)  中文(繁體)  +/−
Warning sign
This media was probably deleted.
Thanks for uploading File:2 MONRO JUNG2.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 ask the author or copyright holder to send an email with copy of a written permission to VRT (permissions-commons@wikimedia.org). You may still be required to go through this procedure even if you are the author yourself; please see Commons:But it's my own work! for more details. After you emailed permission, you may replace the {{No permission since}} tag with {{subst:PP}} on file description page. Alternatively, you may click on "Challenge speedy deletion" below the tag if you wish to provide an argument why evidence of permission is not necessary in this case.

Please see this page for more information on how to confirm permission, or if you would like to understand why we ask for permission when uploading work that is not your own, or work which has been previously published (regardless of whether it is 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 VRT-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:2 MONRO JUNG2.jpg]]) and the above demanded information in your request.

And also:

Yours sincerely, Komarof (talk) 16:35, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you care? --Bernd.Brincken (talk) 17:13, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Source of derivative work is not properly indicated: File:Muchtar Free-Libya 0234 b1.jpg

[edit]
العربية  català  čeština  Deutsch  English  español  hrvatski  italiano  slovenščina  Tiếng Việt  беларуская‎  беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎  русский  ไทย  မြန်မာဘာသာ  ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ  日本語  中文(简体)‎  中文(繁體)‎  فارسی  +/−
Warning sign
This file may be deleted.
A file that you have uploaded to Wikimedia Commons, File:Muchtar Free-Libya 0234 b1.jpg, is a derivative work, containing an "image within an image". Examples of such works would include a photograph of a sculpture, a scan of a magazine cover, or a map that has been altered from the original. In each of these cases, the rights of the creator of the original must be considered, as well as those of the creator of the derivative work.

While the description page states who made this derivative work, it currently doesn't specify who created the original work, so the overall copyright status is unclear. If you did not create the original work depicted in this image, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright.

Please edit the file description and add the missing information, or the file may be deleted. If you created the original content yourself, enter this information as the source. If someone else created the content, 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!

Komarof (talk) 16:36, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The source has been added - an old picture of Omar Muchtar from before 1931. --Bernd.Brincken (talk) 17:02, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Source of derivative work is not properly indicated: File:Barbarossa 161718b.jpg

[edit]
العربية  català  čeština  Deutsch  English  español  hrvatski  italiano  slovenščina  Tiếng Việt  беларуская‎  беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎  русский  ไทย  မြန်မာဘာသာ  ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ  日本語  中文(简体)‎  中文(繁體)‎  فارسی  +/−
Warning sign
This file may be deleted.
A file that you have uploaded to Wikimedia Commons, File:Barbarossa 161718b.jpg, is a derivative work, containing an "image within an image". Examples of such works would include a photograph of a sculpture, a scan of a magazine cover, or a map that has been altered from the original. In each of these cases, the rights of the creator of the original must be considered, as well as those of the creator of the derivative work.

While the description page states who made this derivative work, it currently doesn't specify who created the original work, so the overall copyright status is unclear. If you did not create the original work depicted in this image, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright.

Please edit the file description and add the missing information, or the file may be deleted. If you created the original content yourself, enter this information as the source. If someone else created the content, 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!

Komarof (talk) 16:36, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The pictured documents are of german origin and licensed after german law for use in WP, see template: PD-GermanGov, based on: § 5 Abs.1 de:Urheberrechtsgesetz (Deutschland) or: https://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/urhg/__5.html --Bernd.Brincken (talk) 17:12, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
[1] (half hour before your reply). --Komarof (talk) 17:15, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Author "Nazi german officials" - that are the authors of the _original_ - see also the Omar Muchtar case. My picture shows the comment of Moscow museum curators below, so it is not just a en:Facsimile of the german document. Once again, what is your motive to edit here in this erratic style?