User talk:Ellrbrown

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to: navigation, search
Welcome to Wikimedia Commons, Ellrbrown!
Afrikaans | Alemannisch | العربية | Asturianu | Azərbaycanca | Беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | Български | বাংলা | Català | Čeština | Dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | Zazaki | Ελληνικά | English | Esperanto | Español | Euskara | Estremeñu | فارسی | Suomi | Français | Frysk | Galego | עברית | हिन्दी | Hrvatski | Magyar | Հայերեն | Interlingua | Bahasa Indonesia | Íslenska | Italiano | 日本語 | ქართული | 한국어 | Latina | Lietuvių | Македонски | മലയാളം | मराठी | Bahasa Melayu | Plattdüütsch | नेपाली | Nederlands | Norsk bokmål | Occitan | Polski | Português | Português do Brasil | Română | Русский | Scots | Slovenčina | Slovenščina | Shqip | Српски / srpski | Svenska | Kiswahili | தமிழ் | ไทย | Türkçe | Українська | Vèneto | Tiếng Việt | 中文 | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | 中文(台灣)‎ | +/−

Category:Thinktank_Science_Garden[edit]

Commons-emblem-issue.svg Category:Thinktank_Science_Garden has been listed at Commons:Categories for discussion so that the community can discuss ways in which it should be changed. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

If you created this category, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for discussion 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. If the category is up for deletion because it has been superseded, consider the notion that although the category may be deleted, your hard work (which we all greatly appreciate) lives on in the new category.

In all cases, please do not take the category discussion personally. It is never intended as such. Thank you!


Беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | Deutsch | English | Español | Français | עברית | Magyar | Italiano | 日本語 | Македонски | Polski | Português | Русский | +/−

Andy Mabbett (talk) 10:24, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Category:Thinktank_Kids'_Park[edit]

Commons-emblem-issue.svg Category:Thinktank_Kids'_Park has been listed at Commons:Categories for discussion so that the community can discuss ways in which it should be changed. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

If you created this category, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for discussion 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. If the category is up for deletion because it has been superseded, consider the notion that although the category may be deleted, your hard work (which we all greatly appreciate) lives on in the new category.

In all cases, please do not take the category discussion personally. It is never intended as such. Thank you!


Беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | Deutsch | English | Español | Français | עברית | Magyar | Italiano | 日本語 | Македонски | Polski | Português | Русский | +/−

Andy Mabbett (talk) 10:27, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Public art in the Black Country[edit]

I've removed all uses of Category:Public art in the Black Country and redirected it to Category:Public art in the West Midlands. Best to stick to administrative boundaries. Andy Mabbett (talk) 15:41, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Was a bit confusing that there was two Black Country categories. Could you delete the now empty Category:Public Artwork in the Black Country. One of the photos I couldn't tell if it was in the West Midlands or not (Oakwood Park sculpture by brianboro) Ellrbrown (talk) 16:05, 9 February 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 | Српски / srpski | Svenska | Türkçe | українська | Tiếng Việt | 中文 | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−

Affected:

And also:

Yours sincerely, -mattbuck (Talk) 18:05, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

You will find that Andy Mabbett says that we should keep them all! Please do not delete them mattbuck. There is many examples of graffiti artwork or 2D painted murals in the West Midlands that are on the Wiki Commons and those haven't been deleted! In this case you are wrong! Please remove ALL deletion requests. Thank you Ellrbrown (talk) 17:55, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
I don't think I'm wrong in this case, and, with respect, even a respected Wikimedian such as Andy Mabbett can be wrong sometimes. As for why other stuff hasn't been deleted, it's likely no one's noticed it yet! -mattbuck (Talk) 21:57, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
It's been deleted. All without my permission. Am very very angry! They need to go back on here! Ellrbrown (talk) 20:04, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
Please don't be angry, it's not anything personal, it's a common misunderstanding of copyright and our policies regarding copyright.
Once you uploaded your photos here, you released them under a free licence. We are not disputing that, and we thank you for your contribution. However, we do not need your permission to delete them - if we required the uploader's permission to delete something, we'd never delete anything, and we'd be overrun with celebrity photos which are clearly taken from magazines. Now, the issue here is not such an obvious case of copyright violation, and I know it is not intentional on your part. However, when you take a photo of an artwork, you are creating a "derivative work" of that artwork, and at that point we need to consider the copyright of that artwork. If, for instance, I took a photo of a recently published magazine, I would not be able to upload it because the magazine itself would be copyrighted. In this case, the artwork is in public, and that brings in a whole new load of copyright rules, commonly known as Freedom of Panorama. These are rules about how something being in public affects its copyright. Now, different countries have different rules in this area, and it can frankly be very confusing about what is allowed and what isn't. In France for example, there is no freedom of panorama, and so if you take a photo of a modern building, such as the Milau Viaduct, that would generally not be allowed here because the viaduct itself is copyrighted and we do not have a release from the copyright holder. The UK has generally more lax rules in this area - specifically, "artwork" and buildings which are permanently in a public location are considered to be copyright-free. However, the copyright rules make a distinction between an "artwork" and a "graphic work", a graphic work being something such as a painting or a mural, and graphic works are specifically not covered by freedom of panorama. Thus, if someone takes a photo of a mural, we need to consider the copyright of that mural.
In this case, the mural would presumably be copyrighted by Centro, or possibly the original artist, depending on the agreement to paint it. Now, I agree, you're quite probably right that Centro wouldn't care about people taking photos, but we have a policy called the "Precautionary Principle". This states that arguments along the lines of "the copyright holder won't mind / can't sue / won't find out" hold no weight on Commons. In any situation such as this, we would need an explicit statement by the copyright holder of the mural that they release it under a free licence of some variety.
Please do not mistake our rules as being out to annoy photographers. We aim to create a repository of freely licensed images, and we do this in good faith. We curate our collection to ensure that it complies with local laws regarding copyright, so that reusers can be safe in the knowledge that if they use photos from Commons they won't be stealing from someone.
I hope you understand better why these photos were deleted. I didn't want them to be deleted, and I doubt INeverCry wanted them deleted either, but as derivative works of something with (at best) unclear copyright status, we cannot host them on Commons. -mattbuck (Talk) 21:36, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
Ok I'm a bit more calmer now. What about all the other images on here that are similar (but not yet picked up)? What would happen if I reuploaded them with a different name / description? It kind of left the Kings Norton entry on the List of Public Art in Birmingham photo-less (which is annoying). Ellrbrown (talk) 20:14, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
I have created a new request for Birmingham images - see the bottom section of Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Mattbuck's temporary category. I've tried to limit it to where de minimis rules do not apply (ie where the artwork is a significant element of the image. Several of the bridge ones for instance are not primarily of the artwork). -mattbuck (Talk) 13:02, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
(ec) Oh, I see some of those are yours too (below). -mattbuck (Talk) 13:02, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
Have made notes on your deletion page. Some of them are mosaics that Brianboro took e.g. Horsefair 1908 by Kenneth Budd in Holloway Circus.
What are your thoughts on Andy Mabbett's RSPB Sandwell Valley mural? (he wasn't the photographer but posted it to List of public art in Sandwell) Ellrbrown (talk) 21:24, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
Are you going to request deletion for everything posted to this Graffiti? Must be millions of images from around the world on the commons! Ellrbrown (talk) 21:28, 3 March 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 | Српски / srpski | Svenska | Türkçe | українська | Tiếng Việt | 中文 | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−

Affected:

And also:

Yours sincerely, -mattbuck (Talk) 12:57, 3 March 2015 (UTC)