User talk:George.Hutchinson

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to: navigation, search
Welcome to Wikimedia Commons, George.Hutchinson!

Tip: Categorizing images[edit]

Afrikaans | العربية | беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | català | čeština | dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | Ελληνικά | English | Esperanto | español | فارسی | suomi | français | galego | עברית | magyar | íslenska | italiano | 日本語 | ქართული | 한국어 | македонски | മലയാളം | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | norsk bokmål | polski | português | português do Brasil | română | русский | slovenčina | slovenščina | српски / srpski | svenska | українська | Tiếng Việt | 中文 | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−


Hello, George.Hutchinson!

Tip: Add categories to your images

Thanks a lot for contributing to the Wikimedia Commons! Here's a tip to make your uploads more useful: Why not add some categories to describe them? This will help more people to find and use them.

Here's how:

1) If you're using the UploadWizard, you can add categories to each file when you describe it. Just click "more options" for the file and add the categories which make sense:

Uploadwizard-categories.png

2) You can also pick the file from your list of uploads, edit the file description page, and manually add the category code at the end of the page.

[[Category:Category name]]

For example, if you are uploading a diagram showing the orbits of comets, you add the following code:

[[Category:Astronomical diagrams]]
[[Category:Comets]]

This will make the diagram show up in the categories "Astronomical diagrams" and "Comets".

When picking categories, try to choose a specific category ("Astronomical diagrams") over a generic one ("Illustrations").

Thanks again for your uploads! More information about categorization can be found in Commons:Categories, and don't hesitate to leave a note on the help desk.

BotMultichillT 05:51, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Reverting removal of watermarks[edit]

Recently you reverted the removal of a watermark at File:Polaris A3TK Chevaline RV and PAC toe-in and tilt-out.gif. Contrary to what you believe, the Creative Commons license does not legally require us to retain watermarks, and there is broad consensus for this interpretation at Wikimedia Commons. See Commons:Deletion requests/Template:CC-Dont-Remove Watermark for details. Please do not revert any more removals of watermarks. Dcoetzee (talk) 19:15, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

File tagging File:HMS Astute-Southampton Docks.JPG[edit]

Беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | Català | Čeština | Dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | Ελληνικά | English | Español | فارسی | Suomi | Français | Galego | עברית | Hrvatski | Magyar | Հայերեն | Italiano | 日本語 | 한국어 | Lietuvių | Македонски | മലയാളം | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | Norsk bokmål | Polski | Português | Română | Русский | Sicilianu | Slovenčina | Slovenščina | Svenska | Türkçe | Українська | اردو | Tiếng Việt | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−
Warning sign
This media may be deleted.
Thanks for uploading File:HMS Astute-Southampton Docks.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 send an email with copy of a written permission to OTRS (permissions-commons@wikimedia.org). This also applies if you are the author yourself.

Please see this page for more information on how to confirm permission, and Commons:Permission if you would like to understand why we ask for permission when uploading work that is not your own.

Unless the permission information is given, the image may be deleted after seven days. Thank you.

Saibo (Δ) 23:10, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

An emailed permission has been filed as per your request. It covers not only this HMS Asute image, but all other images supplied by the photographer Brian Burnell, who has no Commons account himself, nor aspires to one. George.Hutchinson (talk) 13:20, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Hello George.Hutchinson, thank you! :-) I have tidied the image's page a bit. Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 14:07, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Photos by Brian Burnell, copyright issues[edit]

There is a discussion about some of your uploads here: Commons:Village_pump/Copyright. Would you like, please, to contribute your views? Thank you. SV1XV (talk) 17:44, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

  • Thanks for your message, it seems that the images are covered by an OTRS ticket. I shall ask the OTRS team to add it to these pictures as well. SV1XV (talk) 15:53, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Template:Wrong license[edit]

Pay attention to licensing Wikimedia Commons only accepts free content: images and other media files that can be used by anyone, for any purpose.

Template:Wrong license seems to be free (or it would be proposed for deletion), but it was identified as having a wrong license. Usually, it is because a public domain image is tagged with a free license, or because the stated source or other information is not sufficient to prove the selected tag is correct. Please verify that you applied the correct license tag for this file.

If you believe this file has the correct license, please explain why on the file description page.


Deutsch | English | español | français | polski | português | svenska | +/−

Files concerned:

SV1XV (talk) 07:43, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

"FGS"[edit]

Hi, you uploaded nice photos of German Navy ships. I want to just let you know that there exists no "FGS" prefix. This is a U.S. Navy invention. When photos became available on the internet in the 1908s, USN editors started to give prefixes that they thought were right to any navy on the whole world. However, the last time German navy ships had prefixes was from 1871 to 1918 when it was "SMS", "Seiner Majestät Schiff" which simply translates into "His Majesty's Ship". Our navy even changes its name from "Bundesmarine" (Federal German Navy) to "Deutsche Marine" (German Navy), following the Cold War. Cheers Cobatfor (talk) 17:44, 24 March 2013 (UTC)


Copyright issues[edit]

Commons has a policy of discouraging or not permitting embedded watermarks. That is the freely chosen policy of all their users, and it is a collective decision that is, and must be, accepted by all users. Within the wikipedia format it doesn't present photographers with disincentives to make their work freely available, because re-use within the wikipedia format ensures that the embedded metadata is copied over, and copyright issues are satisfied. However, outside the Wikipedia format the 'no watermarks' policy can contribute to other perverse effects.

Wikipedia Commons is an invaluable, irreplaceable resource. It enables photographers to make their copyright images freely available to all others to re-use as they please. Whether on Wikipedia pages or other websites. That includes commercial websites run as part of profit-making trading enterprises. Before the advent of the internet and Wikipedia, traders had to obtain images for their adverts from various other fee-charging image libraries. Some still do. Some use good quality images from Commons, and I have no problem with that. As long as they abide by the license terms and accredit the photographer.

Sadly, there are some who don't accredit the photographer. Some even use software that can wipe clean the metadata embedded in the image. In effect those re-users are stealing the intellectual property of the photographer. By stealing images without accreditation they steal the photographer's ideas and judgement. These offenders have recently included a major UK charity who's patron is Royalty. The present sovereign's daughter no less. Some, like this one, and to their credit, respond to an email with a swift apology and a promise to make a correction. Others don't respond at all, and commercial traders are not the worst offenders; they usually have hard-earned trading reputations to consider. Reputations that are easily lost and are commercially valuable. The worst offenders are websites that have no discernable commercial motivation; that are apparently vanity sites or web-blogs. Their most usual response is no response, compelling the photographer to either forget it, or engage in a lengthy and often futile exchange with the web hoster.

A problem that appears to have no simple answer, - at least in the UK. I believe that in the USA such behaviour is unlawful.

That leaves photographers having to make difficult choices. Whether to continue making images freely available on Commons. Or not.

The view taken by Brian Burnell at present is the former. However the latter option is frequently reviewed - usually after the latest abuse of Commons. A quick search of Google Images often seems like the Wild West out there, with little point in the Creative Commons licensing system; because there is no mechanism for it to be enforced; and without enforcement there is no freedom under law.

George.Hutchinson (talk) 12:07, 22 May 2013 (UTC)