User talk:EPO/Archive7

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

Archive: July 23rd, 2006 - January 8th, 2007

Archive: March 12th, 2007 - April 24th, 2007

Archive: December 7th, 2007 - September 16th, 2008

Archive: January 8th, 2007 - January 26th, 2007

Archive: April 29th, 2007 - July 12th, 2007

Archive: January 26th, 2007 - February 12th, 2007

Archive: July 16th, 2007 - November 6th, 2007

Image:Squat the world.JPG[edit]

Hi, I would like to use your image outside the Wikimedia projects. I want to put it on the wall in squat in Wroclaw, Poland on the time the exhibition about GNU, Copyleft and Creative Commons licences. Photos are "in plus" for people to understand the idea of free publications and free licences. Show will be on 14 december 2007 inside of CRK Wroclaw - squat in my city. I have not any user page in commons and Denmark Wikipedia, sorry. --Procent 19:05, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

I am very happy that my photos can be used outside the Wikimedia projects. As a bonus info I can tell that the image was taken during one of the many demonstrations by the people who used en:Ungdomshuset. This particular demonstration in Copenhagen took place on May 1st. At the same demonstration I also took Image:Banner Ritt ud.jpg protesting over her and the city council's decision to sell Ungdomshuset.
If you have any further questions you are of course very welcome to contact me - either here or by e-mail. --|EPO| da: 14:33, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Thank U for this link. I will try to make documentation of my exhibition. After, I'll send to you www addres to show you it.--Procent 15:00, 9 December 2007 (UTC)


Hej EPO/Archive7

Image:Juliane Henningsen.jpg er både uploadet under en "forkert" licens og efter den tidligere beslutning ang. billeder fra så kan det vel slettes med det samme? --Broadbeer 17:58, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Du har fuldstændig ret. Jeg har orienteret brugeren og slettet billedet med det samme. --|EPO| da: 18:35, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Danish localisation[edit]

Hi EPO. I see you have done some localisation work for Danish here on Commons. I was wondering if you knew about the MediaWiki localisation project Betawiki. This wiki allows you to translate (into any supported language) the complete interface of MediaWiki and its extensions. If you like translating and want to help make MediaWiki more usable for your language, please stop by and help. Cheers! Siebrand 20:11, 15 February 2008 (UTC)


What are you doing? --Necessary Evil 23:38, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Jeg har blot konverteret dine .png-billeder til .jpg, der er et meget bedre format til fotos. Du står stadigvæk krediteret som fotograf. --|EPO| da: 11:35, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
Jeg blev fortalt at .png var bedre end .jpg så kan I snart bestemme jer? Jeg havde nemlig aldrig hørt om .png før jeg uploadede billeder til Wikipedia, kun .jpg. Hvad skal png så bruges til?
Normalt kan man under [My contributions] => [gallery] se alle de billeder man har uploaded, din konvertering har ødelagt dette. Hvis nogen af mine .png-billeder skal konverteres til .jpg vil jeg gerne selv gøre dette, tak!--Necessary Evil 16:20, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
.jpg-formatet har den ulempe, at det er et komprimeret format, hvor en del af den visuelle kvalitet går tabt. Fordelen er dog, at det er specielt udviklet til netop fotografiske billeder. .png-formatet er groft sagt stik modsat, da det ikke er et komprimeret format, hvorved kvaliteten kan bibeholdes, men formatet er udviklet som en afløser for .gif-formatet, der anvendes til grafik.
Men ærligt talt, så må jeg indrømme, at jeg ikke forstår, hvorfor du er så irriteret. I mine øjne er det blot en mindre detalje, da du fortsat kan holde øje med billedet via din overvågningsliste. --|EPO| da: 18:03, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
Mange tak for format-oplysningen, det var lærerigt. Til grafik lader det til at .svg er bedre end .png, da førstnævnte er vektorgrafik. Hvis du skulle oplade .png hvad skulle det så være?
I overvågningslisten kan man kun se ændringer på selve, i [my contributions] => [gallery] kan man relativt nemt se hvilke sprogwiki'er der bruger ens billeder. I øvrigt har du brugt den samme oplysning for alle tre billeder, men jeg har takket være Googles cached rettet det. --Necessary Evil 22:48, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Hvis det er kan du jo downloade de billeder EPO har "lavet" og uploade dem under samme navn (overskrive dem). Derved kommer de igen under dit galleri. :) --Broadbeer 18:10, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

OK, men det skulle vel ikke have været nødvendigt! --Necessary Evil 22:48, 21 February 2008 (UTC)


Den danske tekst for [1] har en stavefejl, så der står Commonss cache. Bedes rettet til Commons' cache. --Sir48 16:01, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Maharishi Mahesh Yogi[edit]

Hi. You have deleted two pictures: MaharishiMaheshYogi-01.jpg MaharishiMaheshYogi-06.jpg

Author of these pictures gave permission for GNU 1.2 via E-Mail. E-Mail was sent to

this is exact the procedure laid out for uploading. Please revert the deletion ASAP.

Please see below my E-Mail: Dear Wikipedia colleagues,

today I will upload two photos. Please see the permission below.

Kind regards,

E-Mail of the owner:

Permission is granted to copy, distribute and/or modify the document under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License, Version 1.2 only as published by the Free Software Foundation; with no Invariant Sections, no Front-Cover Texts, and no Back-Cover Texts. A copy of the license is included in the section entitled "Text of the GNU Free Documentation License".

|Description=Template:Maharishi Mahesh Yogi |Date=November 11, 2007 and 2007. |Author=Global Good News |Permission=GNU FDL

Best wishes, Global Good News News Desk

EPO: You should answer. You have no right to delete pictures without any knowing if a GNU permission was given or not. I did not sent the E-Mail with permission to YOU, but to exactly in the manner all the "how to do"-pages are describing the procedure. UNDO DELETION!!!! --Josha52 08:42, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

own image[edit]

Hi. About the image Image:Sri Maharishi sleeping.jpg, I am the one and only author. I made it for commons as I made quite a lot of drawings since commons exists. The french Wikipedia doesn't accept "fair use" so I thought once that it would be clever to draw the images we couldn't get in any other way. But now I don't car a lot : I'm bored of my own drawings and I'm sure that it is much better to erase them than to keep them. But if you do erase them, please take care to correct all the wikis that use this image. Jean-no 11:44, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

oh ! I see there are problems with another image of the same subject ??? Is that just by chance or are you in some kind of cruisade against Sri Maharishi ? I actualy don't like very much cults, religions and any other superstitious bullstuff but I can't deny they exist ! Jean-no 11:48, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
I am on a crusade yes - but not concerning religions. My crusade is to make sure images on Wikimedia Commons doesn't violate any policies. Now - if you had taken the time to look at my discussion archives or contributions you would know that - but you just chose to accuse me of the first thing that came to your mind.
The image description states "JNL" to be the author of that image, but nothing about who "JNL" is. If it really is your own work, you will have to write it. --|EPO| da: 12:02, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Image:KolessaChopin33 2.ogg[edit]

Hello EPO, the recording of the soundfile was done by myself on a reproducing piano. The pianist gave the copyright of the recordings to the company of Welte & Sons, which ceased to exist in this form in 1932. I could claim the rights of the piano roll from the legacy of the family which was given to a museum (and I would get them), but it would be nonsense. If the recording would have been taken from a modern/commercial recording like a CD, this would be a clear violation of the copyright. But not if I have done it by myself. Is there a discussion about this matter? I would be interested to participate on it. Kind regards, Gerhard51 20:06, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

On irc channel a user told that this file was a new recording of an old work. But the author of this new work had been dead for some years and permission for the use had not been obtained. Thus it was deleted as a copyright violation.
It seems there have been some kind of misunderstanding. I will restore the file now. --|EPO| da: 20:09, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
Thanks, Gerhard51 20:48, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for not informing me. Ok, to make it clear: This is a work by Lubka Kolessa, derivative of the one by chopin which is quite obviously PD-old-100. Since it was published after 1923 and Lubka lived until 1944, I quite don’t understand the licensing. Regards, Code·is·poetry 20:49, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
This is a recording made from a piano roll. And this recording was done by myself. I still did'nt find the discussion about it. Gerhard51 17:25, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
The actual piece of art is the piano roll, and it’s copyrighted. Code·is·poetry 16:29, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[edit]

Hi. I'm trying to clear out category:own work. Why on earth did you make this edit? Incidentally, I've reverted it. -Nard 03:21, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Not quite sure.. It's been a while ago now. But I think it should rather have been no source. The user has had some problems regarding correct licensing. This image is scaled down and without meta data from the camera, so I was not quite sure if he is/was the copyright owner or the image was just copied from some webpage. --|EPO| da: 16:19, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Image Tagging Image:Battleship_torpedo_net.jpg[edit]

العربية | asturianu | беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | català | čeština | dansk | Deutsch | Ελληνικά | English | español | euskara | فارسی | suomi | français | galego | עברית | magyar | italiano | 日本語 | 한국어 | македонски | മലയാളം | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | norsk nynorsk | norsk bokmål | polski | português | português do Brasil | русский | slovenčina | slovenščina | svenska | Türkçe | Tiếng Việt | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−

Warning sign
This media may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:Battleship_torpedo_net.jpg. I notice the image page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you have not created this media yourself then you need to argue that we have the right to use the media on Wikimedia Commons (see copyright tagging below). If you have not created the media yourself then you should also specify where you found it, i.e., in most cases link to the website where you got it, and the terms of use for content from that page. If the content is a derivative of a copyrighted work, you need to supply the names and a licence of the original authors as well.

If the media also doesn't have a copyright tag, then you must also add one. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then you can use {{self|GFDL|cc-by-sa-all}} to release it under the multilicense GFDL plus Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike All-version license or {{PD-self}} to release it into the public domain. See Commons:Copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

Note that any unsourced and untagged images will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have uploaded other media, please check that you have specified their source and copyright tagged them, too. You can find all your uploads using the Gallery tool. Thank you. GeorgHHtalk   21:31, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

PD file[edit]

Hello EPO, about [2]since fr:Antoine Bourdelle died on the 1st of october 1929. It 's seems to me that's is over, and his work now, belong to public Domain. Would i be wrong ? Sincerely. -- Perky 11:49, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

The problem is the photographer. Regards, Code·is·poetry 11:52, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
ok, should come.Thx. -- Perky 12:06, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

VIC test[edit]

Hej EPO. Tak for din testnominering af Ungdomshuset! Jeg kan se at du har redigeret lidt i din VIC subpage efter den er blevet lavet. Jeg er interesseret i at høre om den preloadede form der laves under nominering fungerede godt nok eller om dine redigeringer skyldes uhensigtsmæsigheder i preloaden eller instruksen dertil? Jeg har fornylig lavet temmeligt store ændringer af disse i et forsøg på at forbedre det, men jeg tror du er den første der har brugt det efter restruktueringen. Hilsen -- Slaunger 21:53, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Der har faktisk været et kodeproblem. Min signatur anvender hele tre styks |, hvilket åbenbart får skabelonen til at dele min signatur op i to, så den anden del af signaturen placeres i en ny søjle i tabellen. Se på denne version. Tror ikke jeg tidligere har prøvet at signere inde i tabeller, så det er muligt, at skabelonen og dens tabel er fin, men det bare er min signatur, der ødelægger det hele. --|EPO| da: 22:22, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
Det er ret sikkert derfor. Dine pipes opfattes som søjleseperatorer inde i tabellen. Hvis man vil undgå det skal man bruge {{!}} i stedet som susbtituerer til | men ikke ødelægger tabellen (tror jeg). Jeg tror desværre ikke jeg kan finde ud af at lave de benyttede templates robuste over for det med mindre jeg går over til at bruge HTML tabel tags i stedet for wikitables, men det bliver sådan noget rod at se på...-- Slaunger 22:39, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
Heldigvis har jeg sjældent behov for at signere inde i tabeller, så problemet er til at overskue. Hvis jeg skulle have behov for det igen, må jeg bare lære at benytte forhåndsvisning og forsimplre signaturen.
Der er ingen grund til at plastre skabelonen til med grim HTML og jeg gider ikke til at anvende {{!}}. Problemet løst så :) --|EPO| da: 11:48, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
Glimrende. Vi lader det gå i glemmebogen. Hvad synes du ellers om projektet? Hvordan fandt du VIC? -- Slaunger 12:29, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
Jeg synes idéen er aldeles fremragende. Ikke overraskende misunder jeg de fotografer, der kan få udnævnt featured images og quality images er lige teknisk nok for mig. Med et Olympus-kamera købt i Electric City til svimlende 1.500 kr. for snart to år siden, sammenholdt med mine fotografiske kundskaber, er dette lige et projekt for mig. På sin vis er det godt at få sat lidt fokus på de billeder, der gavner projekterne. Enhver kan tage et billede, men hvis man anstregner sig lidt, kan det blive et rimeligt godt billede. Nok er Commons et stort galleri, men jeg synes det er vigtigt at få skelnet skidt fra kanel. I den forbindelse er det glimrende at hylde de billeder, der betyder noget og gør gavn for Wikimedias projekter.
Så det var endnu en gang misundelse, der gjorde, at jeg kiggede på andres udnævnte billeder og i Category:Commons projects faldt over dette projekt. Efter at have læst om det, begyndte jeg at tænke over, hvilke billeder, jeg mon kunne få udnævnt. Efterhånden har jeg fået taget billeder af primært beredskabskøretøjer og bygninger, hvilket ikke har været den store udfordring. Men billedet af Ungdomshuset er noget jeg er stolt af - netop fordi huset jo nu er revet ned og så bruges i alle artiklerne om huset. --|EPO| da: 14:11, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
Det var interessant at høre din holdning. Min intention med forslaget var netop at mobilisere manden på gaden til at tage billeder af alle de til tider værdifuld motiver man trods alt støder på i sin daglige gøren og laden, om man selv opsøger det eller ej, eller om det bare er omkring én. Det glæder mig, at du ser sådan på projektet. -- Slaunger 14:28, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Valued images evaluation[edit]

Dear EPO,

This is a standard message to the 18 different users who so far have been involved in testing Valued images candidates as either a nominator, reviewer or project editor. We are interested in hearing what you think about the project and what your positive and negative experiences have been. We would be grateful if you would voice your opinion here. Thank you,

-- Slaunger 19:26, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Vedr. logo for Storvorde Sejlflod Boldklub[edit]

Hej EPO, Jeg ville lige gøre dig opmærksom på Image:SSB2.png (uploadet af User:PeterSilberbauer), som er det officielle logo for den danske fodboldklub Storvorde Sejlflod Boldklub. Licensforholdene for dette logo kan vel næppe være helt korrekte? --Froztbyte 20:00, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Protecting redir user talk pr user request[edit]

Hm, I was a bit suprised by this. Is it really Commons policy to force our users to sign in or ip-edit to at other projects to communicate with users here. I would like to unprotect the page and ask Pred to enable e-mail notification. Regards, Finn Rindahl 11:51, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Hei, takk for svar. Denne gangen var det jeg som brukte lang tid på å svare tilbake. Om du vil beskytte diskusjonssiden til Pred igjen må du gjerne gjøre det, men i så fall er det bedre om det er en soft redir til brukerens danske side. Da jeg som sysop templatemerket et bilde han hade lastet opp, ble beskjeden om dette lagt "under" #redir på siden hans - beskjeden var der men var altså ikke synlig. Jeg håper ikke avbeskyttelsen jeg gjorde har skapt problemer. Vennlig hilsen --Finn Rindahl 21:40, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
Problemet var (og er), at han har taget kontakt til fotografen og fået tilladelse til at anvende billederne frit. Men billederne slettes alligevel - også selvom han har forsøgt at forklare det. Personligt er jeg af den overbevisning, at tilladelsen er tilstrækkelig.
Til sidst var han så træt af diskussionen, at han blev ligeglad med, om billederne blev slettede. Han forlod mere eller mindre Commons og brændte sine broer (findes udtrykket på norsk?). Så i princippet er det underordnet, om hans side bliver beskyttet eller ej og om han får advarsler eller ej. Så jeg har ikke tænkt mig at beskytte siden igen.
Jeg har tilladt mig at gendanne det billede vores sag her handler om, da jeg mener, at tilladelsen er tilstrækkelig. Linket har muligvis været nemt at overse, men det skulle være mere tydeligt nu. --|EPO| da: 22:32, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Valued images test review phase has ended[edit]

Kære EPO!

Thank you for participating in the development of the Valued images project by test nominating one or more candidates. We have used the input from the test reviews to fine-tune the guidelines, process and templates used, hereby hopefully improving the setup.

We have now decided that on June 1, 2008 at 0:00 (UTC), the valued image project will be opened for official nominations. To get ready for the grand opening, we will close down the last remaining open test candidates in a few hours, such that the candidates list pages are emptied and ready.

Since there has been a certain amount of instruction creep over the course of the test review pahse, we have decided that all promoted and declined candidates from the test review phase will be reset to the so-called "undecided" state prior to the opening. This means that test valued image candidate review pages all end up in Category:Undecided valued images candidates and the test sets end up in Category:Undecided valued image set candidates.

The votes from the original test review will be archived in a previous reviews subpage and reset upon renomination.

Although all nominations will be reset, you, as a test nominator, will still have the advantage that each candidate can be re-nominated beginning June 1 0:00 UTC. The votes from the original test review will be archived in a previous reviews subpage and reset upon renomination. Click on the links to the aforementioned categories for instruction on how to renominate.

In addition, the project has decided to re-nominate all candidates, which were test promoted, unless you tell us not to do so on my talk page. Also, do not hesitate to contact me if you have any questions or problems relating to valued images.

I hope, you will also take part in the project once it goes on the air, either as nominator, maintainer and/or reviewer.

Happy editing, -- Slaunger 21:48, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

VI seal

Ja, ja, det kunne jeg jo godt have skrevet på dansk til dig...cut'n'paste var nu nemmere, når 16 brugere skulle have samme besked... -- Slaunger 21:48, 25 May 2008 (UTC)


Hi EPO. Jeg tænkte på om du kunne sløre ansigterne på Image:Hollaendervogne.jpg á la Image:Banner Ritt ud.jpg ? Jeg tror at det er wikipolicy. --Necessary Evil 19:46, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Jeg mestrer desværre ikke ekspertisen i at sløre ansigter, men jeg kan få en anden til at gøre det. --|EPO| da: 15:17, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
Okay --Necessary Evil 21:09, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Image:Whos the flash git that met Zico .jpg[edit]

Author is Vintagekits. I used i think you should send message to original uploader. --Machiavelli talk 23:38, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Screenshot af OQP[edit]

Hep! Har fået tilladelse til at tage et screenshot af Online Quran Project og smide det online på wikipedia. Kan se at du har slettet dette. I sin tid da jeg uploadet det, skrev jeg i disku.-feltet til dette; at jeg var usikker på hvilken rettigheder jeg skulle tilknytte til dette. Kan du evt. hjælpe mig med dette? --Imdkzmaa 19:19, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Har fået folkene bag projektet til at sende en mail til permissions-commons at wikimedia dot org --Imdkzmaa 19:19, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
Sammen med sletningsadvarslen, gav jeg også en kort besked om, at jeg har forsøgt at svare dig på netop billedets diskussionsside. Hvilken licens, der skal anvendes til billedet afhænger fuldstændig af, hvad der gives tilladelse til. F.eks. GFDL- og Creative Commons-licenserne indeholder en række licensbetingelser, som det kræver, at man tager stilling til. Derfor kan man ikke bare vælge dem ud fra en tanke om, at de "vistnok" passer til den givne tilladelse. Disse specifikke licenser må kun anvendes, hvis der direkte er givet tilladelse til at anvende netop disse.
Der findes et par mere simple licenser, der f.eks. blot kræver kreditering eller komplet fri brug. Disse kan man anvende, hvis det klart fremgår, at de accepterer så frie brugsbetingelser.
Jeg vil forsøge at kigge på sagen en af de kommende dage. Hvis tilladelsen er i orden, vil jeg gendanne billedet. Hvis tilladelsen ikke er i orden, må vi prøve at få en brugbar tilladelse. --|EPO| da: 22:32, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
Sagen bliver åbenbart allerede håndteret af User:Mike.lifeguard. Til din reference er sagen tildelt Ticket# 2008061110024553. --|EPO| da: 08:53, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
Det mig der har været lidt for hurtigt. Dog kan jeg bekræfte at der er blevet fremsendt mail til permissions-commons at wikimedia dot org - nu afventes der godkendelse vil jeg tro? Skal der tages endnu et screenshot eller kan man tilgå de slettet billeder. -- 10:47, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
Der er ganske rigtigt modtaget en e-mail fra dem og ovenstående bruger varetager den videre kontakt med dem. Man kan gendanne slettede billeder, så det skulle der være tjek på. --|EPO| da: 12:57, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
Har fået bekræftet at tilladelse er givet til anvendelse af screenshot og jf. mail har bekræftet det. Af god skik er det bedst du enabler billederne igen, på forhånd tak. --Imdkzmaa (talk) 18:35, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
Jeg har netop genindsat billederne på dansk og engelsk Wikipedia, hvor billedet blev anvendt inden sletningen. --|EPO| da: 18:49, 12 June 2008 (UTC)


Image:SheridanMonumentDC.jpg is of a statue which was erected in 1908[3], so the statue itself should be PD-US, and photos of it should be fine. Can you restore it? Thanks... Carl Lindberg (talk) 04:50, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't know if PD-US supersedes in this case, so I've asked for help on Commons talk:Licensing#Does PD-US supersede copyright expiration? --|EPO| da: 15:15, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Valued Image Promotion[edit]

Your nomination has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! The image you nominated was reviewed and has now been promoted as a valued image. It is considered to be the most valued image on Commons within the scope:
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.



Bemeldte logo for den københavnske S-bane er et registreret varemærke, hvilket fremgår af Patent- & Varemærkestyrelsens register: . Så den logiske følge må vel være, at det skal slettes.

Det er i øvrigt uploadet af tyske User:Siegele Roland, der næppe har været klar over, at den danske varemærkelov i modsætning til den tyske muliggør registrering af særligt udformede bogstaver som varemærker. --Dannebrog Spy (talk) 16:50, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

På Commons skelner man mellem varemærkeret og ophavsret, så selvom et logo er et registreret varemærke, kan det sagtens være uden ophavsret. Eksempelvis er logoer bestående af ren tekst uden værkshøjde, da skriften i sig selv blot er bogstaver, der ikke kan kræves ophavsret på.
Personligt støtter jeg ikke denne skelnen, men kan blive nødt til at affinde mig med situationen. --|EPO| da: 11:33, 27 July 2008 (UTC)


Hello, I would like to know why you delete under "copyright violation", a photo which is MY own work? What do I have to do to persuade you that it is my own work? I used to be a close friend of M. Raimondi, and took lots of pictures of him. I am no longer in touch with him, so what is the solution? I am going to replace the photo and send an email to permissions etc. Thanks, Ragards, Fabian Gastellier-Hathorn

It was nominated for deletion by tagging as missing permission for the selected license on August 4th with a one week notice. After being notified by an other user that it was a screenshot from a film it was deleted. A film is considered a copyrighted work and screenshots from these are under the same copyright as the film. --|EPO| da: 16:07, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Image:Portrait Simons 3.jpg[edit]


Can you please explain what is wrong with Image:Portrait Simons 3.jpg in your opinion? It its clear that it is "own work" by uploader and she placed it in the public doman by choosing the appropriate licence when uploading it. What info are you missing? Best regards, Tjipke de Vries (talk) 15:12, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

User may be the original photographer in 1965 as stated. But I would like the user to confirm this as we very often see similar cases which in fact are copyright violations. --|EPO| da: 15:40, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
Yes please do since I am coaching this new editor with Tjipke and it is the daughter of this deceased writer and publisher who uploaded a picture she made of her own father. MoiraMoira (talk) 15:34, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
Scanning an photograph does not transfer the copyright from the photographer to the scanner. Therefore it is neccesary to get the details. It is very common that users upload images they have scanned and claiming it to be own work. If the user can confirm she is the original photographer and have made the scan herself it may turn out to be false alarm. --|EPO| da: 15:40, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
Where did you read that she did not take the photograph herself? Of course it is scanned, back in the sixties there was no such thing as digital photography. She clearly stated the photo is "own work", I do not see how she can be more clear. Tjipke de Vries (talk) 16:13, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
I did not read anywhere that she didn't take the image herself. As I already have explained it is very common that especially new users make scans of other's photographs. Making a scan of someone else's image without permission makes a copyright violation. Therefore I would like the user to confirm that she is the original photographer.
An experienced user could have made a clear description that he/she is both original photograph and scanner. But for a new user it can be difficult. As explained I want a confirmation from the user.
I don't see how I can explain myself more clear. --|EPO| da: 16:45, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Deleted image[edit]

Hello, I got your note regarding this image; in response I emailed a contact at the Arts Museum of Greater Lafayette to enquire about the suitability of using the photo (including in my message a link to the image). However, I see you've now deleted the image before I've even had a chance to get the response, and the link I sent will now be broken. Since you'd specifically asked that I obtain an email with copy of a written permission and send it to OTRS, I'd have appreciated more than the 24 hours you allowed (particularly since your first message said I had seven days). Huwmanbeing  19:45, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

It's correct that the original standard message stated 7 days. However as the details regarding the frog was explained it became more clear that your photograph was a derivative work. As you may know such images are to be deleted as fast as possible.
I am sorry if this have caused some confusion, but I am just trying to clean up among unfree images. --|EPO| da: 12:19, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Help me to understand the Policy[edit]

Hello EPO, please help me here. I have uploaded a photo of some Danish cookbooks, with focus on a much-used, worn cookbook from 1980. After reading the official policy again, I admit that this is a derived work of copyrighted material, and that it can't be hosted on Commons (thanks for pointing that out). But I don't understand why photos (derived works) of cars and other copyrighted objects like those:

can be hosted? What's the difference between the bottle of coca-cola and a cookbook in this sense? Can you help me out here? Nillerdk (talk) 07:31, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Derivative works are quite complicated and often can it be extremely difficult to determine. One thing is derivative works in general - another thing is laws in different countries.
For the books you uploaded the front was clearly a photograph, which relative easy can be determined. You must ask if the focused is a work ("værkshøjde"). If it is a work how is it placed on the photograph?
Image:Nationalencyklopedin.jpg is too simple to constitute a work. The front is just plain blue. The back has some gloden text, which just states the name. There was a case with da:Jumbobøger as the backs of these create a face of e.g. Donald Duck or Mickey Mouse. As these figures are copyrighted so are their faces and the backs thereby created a new copyrighted work.
Image:IBM PC 5150.jpg has not been developed by an architect with a particular design. Therefore the computer is "just" an object. You could argue that the text on the screen can be either a work or part of a work - but as it constitutes such a small part and clearly is not the foucs, then it is okay.
Image:Botella_CocaCola.jpg is a bit difficult as I think the bottle is a copyrighted work. Furthermore everything else has been cut away. It might be deleted later - anyway it will need to be discussed.
Image:Danskt rugbrød og brødmaskine.jpg is completely okay. Of course does this slice of bread not constitute a work of art. The machine is again made when thinking about functionality rather than design.
Image:Koldskål_og_kammerjunker.jpg is okay as only the carton here can constitute a work. But it is rather far away, clearly not in focus.
I hope it has become more clear. You might also read da:Diskussion:Den lille Havfure and da:Diskussion:Trold, der vejrer kristenblod, which is also about derivative works - though specially regarding statues. --|EPO| da: 15:16, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
Discussed the bottle with User:bastique who confirms that the used bottle is not copyrighted. The logo is not copyrighted (see {{PD-textlogo}}). Then this cannot be a derivative work. --|EPO| da: 16:34, 16 September 2008 (UTC)