User talk:Elcobbola/Archive 2

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

Cigarette card

Hi. (See Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Chrysiridia Cigarette card.jpg). On "reasonable enquiry" On their official website (in Canada) there is no email to join them. Would a phone call to ask be sufficient? Or does it have to be written (i.e. by mail)? I would be happy to either call or write to them, but what questions should I ask apart from "Do you know who is the author?". Pro bug catcher (talk) 02:51, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Chapman Brothers. Death.jpg

You deleted this on the basis that the image was of a copyright work. That was not an issue. The key point is that it was taken as a press photo at the official opening of the exhibition, the Turner Prize, and there was not, according to the original permission, any restriction on subsequent use: "Photo taken at the official press launch. No restriction specified on use of images."[1] I don't think this aspect has been addressed. Tyrenius (talk) 01:57, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

There are two copyrights: 1) the sculpture and 2) the press photo. The press photo is GFDL per that source; that is not contested. The photo, however, is a derivative work of the sculpture and, as such, the copyright of the sculpture needs to be respected. The deletion request ran for almost two months with no evidence forthcoming that the sculpture has an acceptable (i.e. free) license. The existence and importance of dual copyrights was articulated and considered in my closing comment. ЭLСОВВОLД talk 02:14, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Attack Cake

Chocolate cake with white icing.JPG Chocolatefortcake.jpg Atomicfudge1.JPG GermanChocolateCake.jpg
6-te urodziny Wikipedii w Krakowie aa.JPG 5. urodziny polskiej Wikipedii - Wikitort 01.JPG Layered cake with cream.JPG Roberta's WikiCake.jpg
Gateau de bon mariage.jpg Dobos tort.jpg Pound layer cake.jpg Red velvet cake with whipped cream blueberries and strawberries.jpg
The attack cake is NOT a lie. Enjoy. --ShakataGaNai ^_^ 06:00, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
Man, that's going straight to my thighs. ЭLСОВВОLД talk 12:40, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Magyar Horse Archer

Just out of curiosity, what was the source on this deleted one here? I'm only asking as the subject caught my eye, and the name of the image sounded familiar somehow. rootology (T) 15:44, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

The only source information was "Own work by uploader" (which was part of the problem, as the image was such that this was quite unlikely to have been the case). ЭLСОВВОLД talk 18:17, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

TUSC token d9eb595db7c0c073c13808762e8adca0

I am now proud owner of a TUSC account!


How can a make a valid upload? Sway 2 (talk) 16:58, 10 September 2008 (UTC)Sway_2

Commons:Upload (in Portuguese here) does a reasonable job of walking one through the upload process by articulating the information that needs to be included and providing some general guidance in determining an appropriate license. COM:L (in Portuguese here) and COM:PS would be helpful background reading. Эlcobbola talk 17:10, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Image:Tobacco mosaic virus structure.png

Thank you for notifying. I have checked and rewritten the author's information. However I think this is not enough for the reviewers' claim yet, because "verifiable source" has not been specified now. I'm going to recheck my textbook and confirm it in a few days' time. Please wait for a while. Thanks. --Y tambe (talk) 22:43, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Hi. I have published a part of the pov-ray source file (Image talk:Tobacco mosaic virus structure.png) and confirmed it according to Fields Virology (fifth eds, p.75.) All numbers annotated are correct and it would be acceptable as "a schematic model", I think. But the helical structure is inaccurate as a scientific scheme. (1) Where there should be 16 1/3 subunits per turn, there are "16.3" subunits per turn in my figure. (2) the radius of genome and the size of inner pore are inaccurate. (3) the shape of the capsomer is too simplified. (4) displaying of genome (changing the pitch) would be misreadable.
So I would have to update the image, maybe in the future. I appreciated the alternative image uploaded by Graham Colm. It exactly consists of bare bones for the explanation of "helical viral structure" in en, not for the explanation of TMV. --Y tambe (talk) 06:38, 22 September 2008 (UTC)


Much deserved. Giggy (talk) 00:15, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Rubik's cube discussion

Would you care to come back on the earlier comment I made in the discussion. The cube appears to be ineligible for US copyright (since other makers have already started selling direct copies of the cube), and was only ever protected by trademark and patent restrictions. A photograph of a trademarked item does not infringe copyright (but obviously there are other restrictions on it). Megapixie (talk) 00:53, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Megapixie, I'm a strong believer in the Wiki axiom of "verifiability, not truth, is the threshold for inclusion". There exist adjudicated findings from several jurisdictions that the cube is indeed eligible for copyright protection. No such substantive support has been offered to the contrary. It is simply irresponsible for us to represent to our readership that an image is PD when there is reasonable evidence to the contrary. Production by other companies is not, in and of itself, indicative that the cube is in the public domain; there may exist license agreements or the companies may be producing an infringing product for which an injuction has not been issued. Do any of these as yet unnamed companies report to the SEC? If so, is there mention in, say, 8-Ks or 10-Ks about the licensing status? Эlcobbola talk 13:17, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Brenda Song

Hiya E! Regarding this, is there any good reason to believe that the image on Commons was copied from the external source, rather than vice versa?

I ask because the issue has been raised here (in Gguy's comments).

If it's not too much problem, could you reply on, as I rather seldom check my Commons account. Thanks. --Jbmurray (talk) 09:42, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

<en wiki reply> Эlcobbola talk 13:26, 22 October 2008 (UTC)


Hi. Given your speedy close of a recent float image deletion listing, I thought you might wish to contribute to discussion I've started at Commons_talk:Licensing#Floats. Thank you. Cheers, -- Infrogmation (talk) 00:02, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

We're like whack-a-moles

Hey there. Found you. You cannot escape...

In Awadewit's recent FAC nomination Wikipedia:Reception history of Jane Austen, she has Image:Greer Garson in Pride and Prejudice.JPG that is a screenshot apparently from a film trailer. The year I don't know, but it's after 1923 and before 1950. Question: are all trailer screenshots from films between 1923 and 1977 available to use, or must the image summary prove that the film is no longer under copyright first?

In a related question, I tried to use screenshots from the 1963 film To Kill a Mockingbird in the article for the book, and I had to remove them because I could not verify that the copyright for the film had not been renewed. I called the US Copyright Office and they could not find it. But they said the most thorough search would cost $150. Even if I could verify the copyright had not been renewed, does that mean the images are in public domain? Can I avoid this from using shots from the trailer per the above trailer issue? Thanks. --Moni3 (talk) 18:57, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

  • This convinced me that the image was PD. Let me know if I was convinced incorrectly! Awadewit (talk) 20:53, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
"are all trailer screenshots from films between 1923 and 1977 available to use" No, trailers aren't any different than other creative works (i.e. trailers aren't PD just because they're trailers); the snag with trailers from this "era" is that their creators, notably, often failed to comply with certain copyright formalities. That being the case, these trailers may be PD for one of two reasons (ignoring volutary release of rights):
A. No notice. The 1909 Copyright Act and the 1976 Copyright Act (as originally enacted) required a notice of copyright on published works (e.g. trailers). This notice would be a © symbol, the word “Copyright” or an obvious abbreviation thereof, together with the name of the owner of copyright and the year of first publication. Therefore, for works first published before 1978, the complete absence of a copyright notice from the published copy generally indicates that the work is not protected by copyright. In that "era", it was not uncommon for studios to neglect to put notice on trailers (doing so only on the film itself), so such trailers are indeed generally considered PD.
B. Expired term. If a trailer did have a copyright notice, it got an initial 28 year copyright term, which could be renewed. These are the instances that get complicated (and expensive) to verify.
  • If a work was first published with notice or copyrighted between January 1, 1923, and December 31, 1949, and the copyright was not renewed during the last (28th) year, it is PD.
  • If a work was first published with notice or copyrighted between January 1, 1923, and December 31, 1949, and the copyright was renewed, the renewal copyright term was extended 67 years (i.e. 95 years from the end of the year in which copyright was originally secured).
  • If a work was first published with notice or copyrighted between January 1, 1950, and December 31, 1963, and copyright was not renewed during the last (28th) year, it is PD.
  • If a work was first published with notice or copyrighted between January 1, 1950, and December 31, 1963, and the copyright was renewed, the renewal copyright term was extended 67 years.
So, if you're still reading my rambling, the Greer Garson image is expected to be fine if it, as the summary claims, was indeed published before 1978 without notice. Ideally these images would source to YouTube or an equivalent so we could verify ourselves that the copyright notice was absent, but, as a technical matter, merely saying the "1940 Pride and Prejudice trailer" is (barely) sufficiently verifiable.
Regarding To Kill a Mockingbird, yes, if you could verify the copyright had not been renewed, it would be PD as per above. If such verification is not possible, using captures from the trailer would work iff it did not have the notice. Эlcobbola talk 22:39, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
Thanks, E! I've linked to the trailer now. Awadewit (talk) 00:03, 26 November 2008 (UTC)


Hello Elcobbola. I have uploaded 3 Images Image:Richard Crasta2.jpg‎, Image:Richard Crasta3.jpg‎, and Image:Richard Crasta.jpg‎. I have also sent the mail on the OTRS server. I was wondering if you could check them. If you are willing then,

Thanks, Kensplanet (talk) 11:01, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Non Free Images in Wikipedia:Save Our Children

Seriously, if you want me to stop bothering you I will. But I would love your input on the Non Free images in Wikipedia:Save Our Children which I just wrote and posted recently. Particularly there is some commentary on how long the captions are for them, which I'm trying to justify. Thanks. --Moni3 (talk) 19:15, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

It's never a bother.
  • w:Image:Save Our Children Brochure inside.jpg: the brochure itself may have been published without notice, but I suspect the newspapers from which the 8 visible clippings (derivatives) were taken did have notice. They're largely illegible (but not entirely); you may want to reduce the size to be on the safe side.
  • w:Image:Advocate Cover April 20 1977.jpg: not low resolution (NFCC#3B), doesn't cite the copyright holder (NFCC#10A - in this case, it would likely be the publisher). Regarding NFCC#8, there may be a case for the image if this cover had a meaningful impact on the coalition. The current article prose, however, suggests only tangential importance (i.e. reporting on the campaign is one thing, being influential to or having an impact on the campaign is another).
  • w:Image:Newsweek Cover June 6 1977.jpg - also not low resolution and doesn't cite the copyright holder (the Washington Post Company). Yes, the image illustrates the "level at which national dialog of gay rights had reached by May of 1977", but isn't that something that could be readily understood through prose (NFCC#1)? What is the difference in the understanding gained by seeing this image and simply saying "Bryant and the issue of gay rights appeared on the cover of Newsweek in late May 1977"? The latter is free and seems to accomplish the same goal. The other rationale points (heavy coverage and first national media coverage) aren't illustrated by this image; we have to read to understand that (i.e. rely on free prose).
  • w:Image:Anita Bryant Pie October 14 1977.jpg - also not low resolution (although it's been tagged for a reduction) and doesn't cite the copyright holder (Miami Herald is currently Miami Herald Media Co. as a sub of McClatchy, but I think that was a 2006 transaction, not sure about ownership in 1977). That this image contributed to a decline in Bryant's popularity is sound reasoning for NFCC#8, but this isn't an article on Bryant. What impact did this have on Save Our Children via Bryant?
The article seems at times unfocused; is this an article on Save Our Children or Anita Bryant? (I realize the nature of figure heads in such organizations may, to a degree, make this unavoidable). A concern with the non-free media is that they pertain more to Bryant or the broader issue of gay rights and awareness than they do to the article's subject (SOC) or its influence thereon. There may be a place for "Bryant media", but the current images don't have convincing rationales or relevance. If either of these covers themselves had an impact on the coalition, inclusion may be warranted if that impact could be articulated. Alternatively, perhaps a direct, sourced discussion of the impact on SOC of using Bryant's likeness (she seems to have become iconic - I say as a non-native who is fully ignorant of the US in the 1970s) would warrant "Bryant media". Эlcobbola talk 20:10, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

No, I get to bother him next

This image is part of an FAC. I can't seem to verify anything about it, though. When I search in the archive it is linked to, I can't find it. Can we assume the description is correct or not? I was under the impression we had to be able to verify the PD license in some way. Awadewit (talk) 00:22, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

This one is bizarre; I can't locate the image either. Searching for "PH1 GRANT", however, indicates that Grant was indeed present at the event, as he has other images (which, curiously, are in color and portrait orientation). Licenses do need to be verifiable (thus the reason linking directly to an image is a no no). If this had once linked to a description page, it could be treated in accordance with w:WP:DEADREF, but that doesn't appear to be the case. The call is yours to make: press for sourcing required by WP:V and WP:IUP, or just IAR (it very likely is PD). Эlcobbola talk 23:12, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

You were mentioned on my Wikipedia talk page

I mentioned you on my bot account's Wikipedia talk page. Thought you may want to know. I did notice your retire message on you WP talkpage, but I figured it couldn't hurt to let you know.--Rockfang (talk) 00:59, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

<Answered at> Эlcobbola talk 16:55, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Non-free content questions

Sorry to see you retired from en-Wikipedia, and glad to see you are still active over here. I have a quick question about en:Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2008-09-22/Dispatches and the examples I raised in April 2008 here and here (both on en-Wikipedia). I had always intended to turn those examples into a guide of some sort, along the lines of what you did for that Signpost Dispatches article, and was wondering whether you would agree that the images I found in that debate from April 2008 are suitable examples. If you do have an opinion, please let me know, as I hope to turn those examples into a guide at some point. I don't check over here on Commons very often, but will try to remember to do so over the next few days. I think leaving a message on my talk page will also alert me by e-mail. I do have a vague memory of having asked you this before - apologies if this is the case! Carcharoth (Commons) (talk) 01:56, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

<Answered at>. Эlcobbola talk 20:24, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Request for clarification

Greetings. I was recommended by other members of w:WP:VG to seek your advice on this, I hope you can take a minute out to give this a look-over for me. Can you tell me whether the unilateral deletion of this image on Commons was justified? Its a photo of w:Sam & Max at Comic-Con 2007, and was deleted by another Commons admin because they thought it was copyrighted material, even though it was taken by a member of the public, published under the {{Cc-by-sa-2.0}}, a license supposedly valid on Commons, and in particular, its upload had already been approved and confirmed by another admin. We've got tons of images in the exact same vein uploaded on Commons, such as Category:Master Chief (Halo) and Category:Lara Croft, many taken from Flickr and licensed in the same way, so I find this bewildering. I just cannot see why my image was deleted (originally published here), when other images of the same nature that were taken by the member of the public, published on Flickr under the CC attribution/share alike license have been approved consistently elsewhere on Commons. Can you help clarify this for me? It seems like a misunderstanding by the deleting administrator, but I would like to get to the bottom of this. -- S@bre (talk) 17:11, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

<answered at>. Эlcobbola talk 19:58, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the reply. I've started an undeletion request all the same, albeit my arguments probably less watertight than a sponge that has been machinegunned and dumped in the south Pacific, but it's worth the try to at least get some discussion on the subject. A further question, in the event that the image is not restored, can I send Telltale Games an email, containing a url to that Flickr page, and ask them if they agree to the CC license on that image so it can be used on Wikipedia? That should work with one of those OTRS thingys, shouldn't it? If both parties consent (I've got a higher chance with Telltale than most others, they're a small-time company who regularly mix with the masses), then it should be ok for usage and can surely be restored that way. -- S@bre (talk) 21:04, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Comic/ VG FACs

Poor Awadewit has been stricken by health issues. Don't know what the problem is, but she is out of commission temporarily. I have not reviewed comic book characters and video games for images before at FAC. I have questions about the images in Wikipedia:Necrid. Whatever insight you can give for these I would appreciate. I will check back here. Thanks so much. --Moni3 (talk) 19:24, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

(PS I took your advice and removed two images from the Save Our Children article, asked for a peer review, and plan to upload another set of images with lower resolution per your suggestions. Thanks for that as well.)

  • All three are not low resolution (NFCC#3B):
  • Why do w:Image:Necrid01.png and w:Image:Sc2-necrid.jpg each have 4 (!!!) copyright tags? In addition to being unnecessary, contradictory and confusing, NFCC#10B is in the singular. ;)
  • Both w:Image:Necrid01.png and w:Image:Souldcalibur2-necrid-screenshot.jpg have the same purpose ("To illustrate the character in question" and "Illustrating character appearance..."); why, then, are both needed? (NFCC#3A)
  • I'm not convinced w:Image:Sc2-necrid.jpg is making a significant contribution (NFCC#8). Do we understand the character better by seeing that he owns a second pair of clothes? Alternatively, the second paragraph of the "Design" section describes the differences in the alternate outfit; that description in the presence of a "normal" outfit image seems sufficient to convey the necessary information (NFCC#1). These issues, however, are subjective to the way I understand the article, so you may or may not agree with my concerns on this point.
  • All three purpose statements are not detailed, specific, etc. (NFCC#10C). "To illustrate the character in question", for example, is a function, not purpose. Of course an image illustrates; we should be told why such illustration is necessary (e.g. facilitate identification of the character, etc.) See "Purpose writing" in the non-free dispatch.
  • Hope this helps! (I'm sorry to hear about A.) Эlcobbola talk 20:23, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Public domain images in country of origin

Hey elco, over at en.wp I'm reviewing the images for List of monarchs of the Muhammad Ali Dynasty. Almost all the images are public domain in Egypt (who apparently have the most lax copyright restrictions ever), but for some, such as this one, in the United States they would not be PD (assuming the author is still living/et al.) Since the servers are in Florida, am I correct in assuming that these images for our purposes are not free? David Fuchs (talk) 22:23, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Questionable behaviour

Hi Elcobbola, da du sowohl Deutsch als auch Englisch perfekt zu sprechen scheinst, wechsle ich der Bequemlichkeit halber einfach einmal auf meine Muttersprache. D'accord? Der Fairness halber wäre es nur angebracht, Zitatbruchstücke im Kontext zu belassen und die Relativierung im folgenden Satz auch zu nennen.[2] Außerdem ist es schon merkwürdig, dass Gs. germanophobe Auslassungen "influx of germans" und "no proper use of english" w:en:Wikipedia:No personal attacks (amüsant, bezog er es doch ausschließlich auf mich, obwohl der gesamte Antrag in der Vorbereitung von mehreren Köchen verbrochen worden war) unter dieser Auflistung keinen Platz finden mögen. Ebenso einseitig stellte er es die Tatsachen verdrehend als ausschließlich persönlichen Gegensatz zwischen drei Usern und ihm selbst. Die beteiligten Cecil und ABF als Administratoren ließ er dabei bequemerweise unter den Tisch fallen.

Außerdem empfinde ich die zeitweilige Aktivität dieses Users im Zusammenhang mit seiner ebenso überraschend schnellen Adminkandidatur, seiner Umbenennung und seines Rückzugs vielleicht ebenso erwähnenswert.

Trotzdem danke für deine umfassende Arbeit (die jedoch leider Dritte zum Denken in Nationalitäten anregt) und die Außenbetrachtung. Ich hätte aufgrund Gs langjähriger Arbeit gerne dessen guten Willen berücksichtigen wollen, aber seine Uneinsichtigkeit entgegen wissenschaftlicher bzw. logischer Argumente einfach auf seiner Meinung zu beharren und nicht mehr zu antworten, verhärtete die Situation. Ich stimme dir vollkommen zu, dass "perhaps due to procedural differences between Commons and certain Wikipedia projects" die Arbeitsprozesse hier oft unvereinbar erscheinen. "dispute resolution" lässt sich am ehesten noch mit unseren Vermittlern vergleichen, vernachlässigt aber hier die Tatsache, dass beide Parteien zuvor einen oder mehrere Mediatoren anerkennen. Und dies ist nur eine Sache, die in der Koordinierung nicht passt. Hätten andere Administratoren mehr Zeit darauf verwendet, Gryffindor zu kontrollieren, dann wäre es nicht zu diesem notwendigen Eklat gekommen. Auf de: gibt es die im wesentlichen von anderen Administoren getragene temp-de-Admin, die im wesentlichen funktioniert. Hier leider offenkundig noch nicht einmal im Ansatz zu erkennen. Schade. CU --Herrick (talk) 16:10, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for this, it's really useful. Patrícia msg 18:06, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
  • @Elcobbola: Noch keine Zeit gefunden für eine Antwort? Schade. Außerdem ist dir ein kleiner Fehler unterlaufen: aufgrund seiner vor Urzeiten vorgenommenen Umbenennung[3] existiert User:Schlendrian nun als de:Benutzer:Florian Adler auf de:, sodass die ratio-Berechnung hinkt. --Herrick (talk) 11:29, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
Herrick, ich begrüße die Gedanken; zwar hast du keine Fragen gestellt, oder? Ganz gewiss ist der ganze Ablauf der Ereignisse schade. Эlcobbola talk 13:54, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Unknown copyright and publication, probably taken 70+ years ago

Can I have your advice on this issue in the image review? Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Shackleton–Rowett_Expedition

It is my feeling, such as it is, that Fair Use rationales are not as "strong" as public domain images. Certainly the uncategorized Fair Use template makes me think it is a temporary template to use until a better rationale or more information about the image can be learned. What is your feeling about having these "does not fall into one of the blanket acceptable non-free content categories" for Featured Articles? --Moni3 (talk) 19:01, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Help with some things

If you have a chance, I need to run some images by you. Some for Milton, some for Kipling. The Kipling images are probably the ones that will take the most research to find out if they are PD or not, and how to license them. You can email me if you want. We don't have to do this immediately, and if you need to wait a few weeks, that is fine too. Ottava Rima (talk) 01:56, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Request for image reviews

Hi Elcobbola, I greatly respect your opinion on image copyrights, and would like your review for the non-free images I am using for the article en:Toa Payoh ritual murders on Wikipedia (if you can give an opinion on how the article reads as well, that would be great). My talk page is open here on Commons for your comments if you choose not to comment on the peer review. Thank you very much. Jappalang (talk) 02:08, 15 December 2008 (UTC)


The decision for a consensus in which you took part last August is being disputed on the Annie Chapman talk page and within the archive space of the original decision here. The user cites recent changes to UK copyright law, recent changes in WP policies, and recent changes to the licensing template, (none of which are my forte) as being reasons why the decision was wrong.. I would like to defer to those with more knowledge on the subjects the user brings up so I have left this note on the talk page of those involved and you are invited to participate. Thank you,
Berean Hunter (talk) 22:43, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Your message

Your warning was incivil and unneccessary. It was obvious that the uploader wanted the image to remain on the commons. I cleaned up the images so we won't have to go through another debate about whether they need to be undeleted. If the uploader wants to correct the licensing, they are free to do so. Really, don't you have anything better to do with your time? Evrik (talk) 16:19, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Note: my comment (not uncivil) and subsequent removal. Эlcobbola talk 16:24, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
Comments such as "Really, don't you have anything better to do with your time?", unlike the warning I left for you, are indeed uncivil. Licensing other people's work is not acceptable, no matter how likely they may be to use the chosen license. A warning against such action is absolutely necessary. As you're inclined to remove warnings from your own page, I'll leave one here: continued incivility from you and/or continued disruptive licensing will require escalation. Эlcobbola talk 16:31, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Have some cake


Have some cake on me. Evrik (talk) 17:10, 19 December 2008 (UTC)


Dear Elcobbola, I had the image "File:Steven goldstein pilot colombia.jpg" deleted twice by you. I got this image personally from Steven Goldstein. He is a friend of mine and he's ok with using it here on wikipedia. I can also let him or his manager write you to certify that they agree with the use of the image. What do I have to do to let this image being able to be used here? Should I upload it again but with another type of License? Which license should I use?

Thank you, Giovanni

Hi Giovanni, we need to be able to verify that the image's copyright holder (who would be expected to be the photographer, not Mr. Goldstein - unless, of course, there has been contractual reassignment of copyrights) has indeed licensed the image with the claimed license (cc-by-sa-3.0/GFDL). If the copyright holder does agree to license this image as such, they, or someone authorized to speak on their behalf, can send an email to permissions-commons AT wikimedia DOT org indicating the same. It would be preferable for the email to come from a "non-free" domain (e.g.; as anyone can register for a hotmail or gmail address, "free" domains are less helpful.
Let me know when/if the email is sent and I will undelete the image and tag it as pending verification. I have OTRS access, so I can complete the verification if the email is in order. Regards, Эlcobbola talk 15:39, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Dear Elcobbola, I got the photographer to send an email from XYZ AT fernando DOT com on Thu, Dec 18, 2008 at 7:33 PM, with subject Granting Permission, to permissions-commons AT wikimedia DOT org. Here you can see the content of the email:

Wikipedia Commons, I am the official photographer of race car driver Steven Goldstein. I hereby grant permission to use the image "File:Steven goldstein pilot colombia.jpg" which previously appeared in Steven's Wikipedia entry. That same image actually appears in the main page of the pilots website:

I am glad to be helpfull to Wikipedia, encyclopedia which I use constantly in my day to day life.

Should you need any further information please contact me at

My website is:

Best regards, Fernando

Fernando Decillis

Is this all in need for the license? What should I do next?

Thank you, Giovanni

Giovanni, I've restored File:Steven goldstein pilot colombia.jpg and tagged it as pending permission. I haven't had time to check the email but, if the above is the complete text, we will need a bit more information: we need to know the explicit license to be used (e.g. if GFDL is desired, something to the effect of "I own the copyright to the images found attached in this email. I grant permission to copy, distribute and/or modify these documents under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License, Version 1.2 or any later version published by the Free Software Foundation; with no Invariant Sections, no Front-Cover Texts, and no Back-Cover Texts.")
At this point, however, you don't need to take further action, as the request for that explicit statement will come through the system. Although, if you want to speed up the process, you could have them send an updated email now to preempt the request. Эlcobbola talk 23:50, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Another question

A bit more of a different flavor. To what extent are logos consisting of a typeface copyrighted? Case in point is the logo to the video game Marathon(seen here, not the emblem, but the MARATHON text itself.) Now, the type is actually a real font, Modula Tall, so if someone creates the same sequence of letters in the same font, is that a copyrighted logo? --David Fuchs (talk) 03:06, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

No need to add, that takes care of my question (in short I can make an SVG of the modula tall typeface as 'MARATHON', but can't just steal what's on the box art or what have you.) Thanks for your detailed replies as always. David Fuchs (talk) 14:47, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Question on FL nomination

Hi there,

I got to you referenced from one of the directors of the En-wiki FL committee and I have a very important question to ask.

My self with a group of other editors have been working hardly in a set of articles that we would like to promote to FL (and potentially the whole thing to a featured topic). We managed to promote one, Belgium; but when we started to work on the nomination of the other articles (specifically Austria), somebody claimed that there are too many non-free images on them and the whole process froze. We have since then prepared for nomination the countries Austria, Finland, Malta, Cyprus, Greece, Slovenia and Monaco; while we continue to work on the other countries (we have good progress in Ireland, Germany, Netherlands, France, Spain, Vatican and Luxembourg for example).

The question is: what is your opinion about lists that have different non-free but properly fair-use images intrinsic in the character of the list? The images are not there to make the article look good or to illustrate the topic, they are the core existence of the article and without the images the article itself makes no sense. Can you please take a quick look at the Austrian article for example and tell me your opinion on the usage of the images?

I do have a strong view about it and I think that we can still be within the guidelines of non-free images use in list articles. I am willing to have a discussion on each topic of that guideline if necessary. Can you please let me know what your opinion is?

I am trying to keep the discussion centralized for future reference. If possible, please reply in this talk page. BTW, I posted a similar note in your English talk page, apologies for the confusion. Thanks a lot, Miguel.mateo (talk) 04:11, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Hi there,
First, Happy New Year! I was wondering if you have had time to check the ussage of the image in the articles I have mentioned.
Thanks, Miguel.mateo (talk) 04:20, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
Hi again, thanks for your answer in the requested page. I have answer your question and I require your attention once again in the previously mentioned page. Can you please come back to reply? Also, in case we need to discuss further shall I: write a note here that I need your opinion OR write a world in English wiki OR do nothing because you're watching that page? Please let me know what is more convenient for you. Thanks, Miguel.mateo (talk) 01:30, 7 January 2009 (UTC)