User talk:CBM

Welcome to the Commons, CBM!

First steps tutorial Our first steps help file and our FAQ will help you a lot after registration. They explain how to customize the interface (for example the language), how to upload files and our basic licensing policy. You don't need technical skills in order to contribute here. Be bold contributing here and assume good faith for the intentions of others. This is a wiki - it is really easy. Getting help More information is available at the Community Portal. You may ask questions at the Help desk, Village Pump or on IRC channel #wikimedia-commons. You can also contact an administrator on their talk page. If you have a specific copyright question, ask at Commons talk:Licensing.		Goodies, tips and tricks Put Babel boxes on your user page so others know what languages you can speak and indicate your Graphics abilities. All your uploads are stored in your personal Gallery Please sign your name on Talk pages by typing ~~~~ Use the CommonSense tool to find good categories for your files (then other people can find them too!) To link to an image page, write this: [[:Image:Foo.jpg]], it makes this: Image:Foo.jpg If you're copying files from another project, be sure to use the CommonsHelper Made a mistake? Did you want to rename or move a file? Simply upload the file again and mark the old one like this: {{bad name|Correct name}} For more information read the full Deletion guidelines
(P.S. Would you like to provide feedback on this message?)

Thanks

Thanks for the heads up on the Poker Hands chart. I'll modify the file and upload a replacement. Grundlebug Sept. 12, 2007

Che

Selamlar White Cat tr:Resim:CheHigh.jpg sil etiketi koyup commonsta silindi demişsin ancak aynı resimler commonsta hala bulunuyor, bilgilendirirsen sevinirim. Teşekkürler. Image:Guevarakorda3.jpg Image:Guevarakorda2.jpg--Machiavelli ^talk 23:16, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Replied in local wiki -- Cat ^ちぃ？ 19:28, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

There is actually a long-open commons deletion discussion about these: Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Guevarakorda2.jpg. Would you mind looking into that? CBM 20:03, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Reviewing it now. Thanks for bringing it to my attention. -- Cat ^ちぃ？ 09:10, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

The image was not a copyright violation, and should not have been deleted without discussion or asking for rationale to meet your objections. A 2 year old archived argument that lacks proper facts was incorrect. I have restored the image with additional rationale and it includes all legal justification showing it to be in the public domain. Redthoreau 20:30, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Please understand that there is a COM:DEL discussion on the matter, I am merely replicating the consensus reached. Images deleted via COM:DEL cannot and should not be reuploaded or undeleted without the necessary COM:UNDEL discussion. If there is a non-controversial and obvious reason why the images should be undeleted, a simple good faith discussion should easily handle it. I do want to note that we will not start a new discussion each time a duplicate of a deleted image is uploaded. Past consensus will apply in the absence of a proper discussion. This is merely the practice on commons. The entire point of this process is to keep commons safe from lawsuits.

As for the spesific matter of the said images, I would be more than happy to reverse my actions in the light of such a consensus. I will in good faith undelete one of the images for the duration of this discussion allowing people to see the deleted image. The image however would be deleted again eventually if not by me then by someone else unless the complex copyright status is clarified.

Seems like you know about the matter better than I so I would like you to start an undeletion discussion on the matter at COM:UNDEL.

-- Cat ^ちぃ？ 09:10, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

CBM - The issue here is the law ... and the law makes this photo in the Public domain ... hence why it is one of the most reproduced images in the history of photography, and NO ONE has ever been sued for using it, other than smirnoff under "Moral Rights" ... not "Copyright" rights.

LEGAL JUSTIFICATION:

- The photo was used for the first time internationally in 1967. It is in the public domain by Decree Law no. 156, September 28, 1994, to amend part of Law no. 14 December 28, 1977, Copyright Act (Article 47) which states that the pictures fall into the public domain Worldwide, 25 years after its first use.

- Cuba did not sign the Berne Convention until 1997, and this photo was taken and publicized 30 years before that and thus is in the public domain.

- This includes being in the Public Domain in the United States - Since the image was first published in Cuba without compliance of US copyright formalities and used in Cuba before February 20, 1972.

- Of importance yes it is true that Alberto Korda sued that vodka maker Smirnoff based on his "moral rights" (under the belief that Che Guevara wouldn't support alcohol) that are independent of copyright status. Although "moral rights" are not recognized in the U.S. - they are recognized through most of the World and part of international copyright law. Moral rights are included in Berne Convention, so if the photographer is still alive, he still can sue, even if the picture is public domain. However, the moral rights are not transferable, and when Korda died 2001, no one can control the use of the picture anymore under that premise.

- Moreover, Wikipedia allows for the use of "Images with iconic status or historical importance: As subjects of commentary." [1]. This image meets that criteria based on the fact that the Maryland Institute College of Art proclaimed this picture "the most famous photograph in the world and a symbol of the 20th century."[2] while The V&A Museum declared it "the most reproduced image in the history of photography."[3]Redthoreau 16:27, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

If you are going to rely on Sarah Levy, "A Copyright Revolution: Protecting the Famous Photograph of Che Guevara", 13 Law & Bus. Rev. Am. 687, 2007., then the onus is on you to provide this in Pdf or a link to where it can be accessed. I have provided my rationale, and a copy of the convention. All you have done is stated a sentence from an article, that can't be easily located. Redthoreau 19:22, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

I have looked for this article under JSTOR, Lexis Nexus, and all over the internet to no avail. I have even had a friend who is a professional researcher try to dig it up, who couldn't. Where exactly did you read it ? Where did you find it ? And where can I specifically find it ? Also can you email me the PdF or link to it if you have one? It should not be this difficult to locate a source and I believe that if it can not be located, then it should not be considered. Redthoreau 20:38, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

I have downloaded and found the article ... thanks. I will painstakingly review it tomorrow in good faith and let you know my views on its contents and post relevant parts of the article that I believe support a decision, one way or the other. Redthoreau

• Please read my take on the Photo ... REPORT ..... Redthoreau 08:38, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

TUSC token 2f2bc8e32279926b7429cec1eac3fb6e

For some reason I have to jump through hoops to use the CommonsHelper program. CBM ( ) 17:46, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

File:Janet Jackson 20090117.jpg

Critically evaluate Flickr licenses

File:Janet Jackson 20090117.jpg has been marked as a copyright violation. You may have preserved the information shown on Flickr correctly when transferring the image here, but the Flickr uploader is not the copyright holder of this image. Either the image was created by someone else, or it is a derivative of someone else's work. As stated in Commons:Licensing, only the copyright holder may issue a license, so the one shown on Flickr is invalid. Always remember to critically evaluate Flickr licenses. Photostreams with professional-looking photographs, album covers, posters, and images in a wide range of styles or quality taken by many different cameras often indicate that the Flickr uploader either does not understand or does not care about copyright matters. See Commons:Questionable Flickr images for a list of known bad Flickr users.

Martin H. (talk) 18:01, 10 October 2009 (UTC)