User talk:Jmoul Francis

Welcome to Wikimedia Commons, Jmoul Francis!

First steps tutorial Our first steps tour and our frequently asked questions 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 (Wikimedia Commons only accepts free content). You don't need technical skills in order to contribute here. Be bold when contributing and assume good faith when interacting with others. This is a wiki. 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 (webchat). You can also contact an administrator on their talk page. If you have a specific copyright question, ask at the copyright village pump.

Goodies, tips, and tricks Put Babel boxes on your user page so others know what languages you can speak and indicate your graphic abilities. You can find the files you have uploaded in your Uploads. Please sign your name on Talk pages by typing ~~~~. To link to an image page without embedding the image, type: [[:File:Foo.jpg]], which produces: File:Foo.jpg. You may enable gadgets (custom features) for your account. There are several tools to upload files. Have you edited Wikipedia before? This guide might be useful. Made a mistake? Do you want to have a file renamed or moved? Use the move link and wait for an authorized user to rename it. Do you want to have your recently uploaded picture removed? Tag it as {{speedy|reason here}}. For more information read the deletion guidelines.

File:Lester_bird.jpg

File:Lester_bird.jpg has been marked as a possible copyright violation. Wikimedia Commons only accepts free content—that is, images and other media files that can be used by anyone, for any purpose. Traditional copyright law does not grant these freedoms, and unless noted otherwise, everything you find on the web is copyrighted and not permitted here. For details on what is acceptable, please read Commons:Licensing. You may also find Commons:Copyright rules useful, or you can ask questions about Commons policies at the Commons:Help desk. If you are the copyright holder and the creator of the file, please read Commons:But it's my own work! for tips on how to provide evidence of that. The file you added has been deleted. If you have written permission from the copyright holder, please have them send us a free license release via COM:VRT. If you believe that the deletion was not in accordance with policy, you may request undeletion. (It is not necessary to request undeletion if using VRT; the file will be automatically restored at the conclusion of the process.) Warning: Wikimedia Commons takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

 

Ciell (talk) 12:45, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

File tagging File:Vere Bird.jpg

This media may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading File:Vere Bird.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 ask the author or copyright holder to send an email with copy of a written permission to VRT (permissions-commons@wikimedia.org). You may still be required to go through this procedure even if you are the author yourself; please see Commons:But it's my own work! for more details. After you emailed permission, you may replace the {{No permission since}} tag with {{subst:PP}} on file description page. Alternatively, you may click on "Challenge speedy deletion" below the tag if you wish to provide an argument why evidence of permission is not necessary in this case. Please see this page for more information on how to confirm permission, or if you would like to understand why we ask for permission when uploading work that is not your own, or work which has been previously published (regardless of whether it is your own). Warning: unless the permission information is given, the file may be deleted after seven days. Thank you.

 

Smooth_O (talk) 22:32, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

File tagging File:Lester-Bird.jpg

This media was probably deleted.

Thanks for uploading File:Lester-Bird.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 ask the author or copyright holder to send an email with copy of a written permission to VRT (permissions-commons@wikimedia.org). You may still be required to go through this procedure even if you are the author yourself; please see Commons:But it's my own work! for more details. After you emailed permission, you may replace the {{No permission since}} tag with {{subst:PP}} on file description page. Alternatively, you may click on "Challenge speedy deletion" below the tag if you wish to provide an argument why evidence of permission is not necessary in this case. Please see this page for more information on how to confirm permission, or if you would like to understand why we ask for permission when uploading work that is not your own, or work which has been previously published (regardless of whether it is your own). The file probably has been deleted. If you sent a permission, try to send it again after 14 days. Do not re-upload. When the VRT-member processes your mail, the file can be undeleted. Additionally you can request undeletion here, providing a link to the File-page on Commons where it was uploaded ([[:File:Lester-Bird.jpg]]) and the above demanded information in your request.

 

Smooth_O (talk) 22:45, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

File tagging File:Gaston Brown1.jpg

This media was probably deleted.

Thanks for uploading File:Gaston Brown1.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 ask the author or copyright holder to send an email with copy of a written permission to VRT (permissions-commons@wikimedia.org). You may still be required to go through this procedure even if you are the author yourself; please see Commons:But it's my own work! for more details. After you emailed permission, you may replace the {{No permission since}} tag with {{subst:PP}} on file description page. Alternatively, you may click on "Challenge speedy deletion" below the tag if you wish to provide an argument why evidence of permission is not necessary in this case. Please see this page for more information on how to confirm permission, or if you would like to understand why we ask for permission when uploading work that is not your own, or work which has been previously published (regardless of whether it is your own). The file probably has been deleted. If you sent a permission, try to send it again after 14 days. Do not re-upload. When the VRT-member processes your mail, the file can be undeleted. Additionally you can request undeletion here, providing a link to the File-page on Commons where it was uploaded ([[:File:Gaston Brown1.jpg]]) and the above demanded information in your request.

 

—LX (talk, contribs) 18:14, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

File:Gaston-BrownePM.jpg

File:Gaston-BrownePM.jpg has been marked as a possible copyright violation. Wikimedia Commons only accepts free content—that is, images and other media files that can be used by anyone, for any purpose. Traditional copyright law does not grant these freedoms, and unless noted otherwise, everything you find on the web is copyrighted and not permitted here. For details on what is acceptable, please read Commons:Licensing. You may also find Commons:Copyright rules useful, or you can ask questions about Commons policies at the Commons:Help desk. If you are the copyright holder and the creator of the file, please read Commons:But it's my own work! for tips on how to provide evidence of that. The file you added has been deleted. If you have written permission from the copyright holder, please have them send us a free license release via COM:VRT. If you believe that the deletion was not in accordance with policy, you may request undeletion. (It is not necessary to request undeletion if using VRT; the file will be automatically restored at the conclusion of the process.) Warning: Wikimedia Commons takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

 

—LX (talk, contribs) 18:19, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

File:Sir Rodney Williams.jpg

File:Sir Rodney Williams.jpg has been marked as a possible copyright violation. Wikimedia Commons only accepts free content—that is, images and other media files that can be used by anyone, for any purpose. Traditional copyright law does not grant these freedoms, and unless noted otherwise, everything you find on the web is copyrighted and not permitted here. For details on what is acceptable, please read Commons:Licensing. You may also find Commons:Copyright rules useful, or you can ask questions about Commons policies at the Commons:Help desk. If you are the copyright holder and the creator of the file, please read Commons:But it's my own work! for tips on how to provide evidence of that. The file you added has been deleted. If you have written permission from the copyright holder, please have them send us a free license release via COM:VRT. If you believe that the deletion was not in accordance with policy, you may request undeletion. (It is not necessary to request undeletion if using VRT; the file will be automatically restored at the conclusion of the process.) Warning: Wikimedia Commons takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

 

—LX (talk, contribs) 18:19, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Copyright violations

---

Hello Jmoul Francis. You have uploaded one or more files that are copyright violations. You have done so despite requests from editors not to do so, and despite their instructions. See Commons:Licensing for the copyright policy on Wikimedia Commons. You may also find Commons:Copyright rules by subject matter useful. This is your last warning. The next time you upload a file that violates copyright, you will be blocked. Please leave me a message if you have further questions.

—LX (talk, contribs) 18:19, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

18:38, 8 February 2015 (UTC)~ Dear Sir or Madam,

I would like to make it abundantly clear that ALL OF THE FILES THAT I UPLOADED ARE PUBLIC FILES available from government official websites and governmental organisation websites as well. I find it very unjust that violations are being registered by individuals with no local standi when it comes to registering their violations. Pictures on governmental websites are for common use. There is no updated picture of any person on Wikipedia from my country because someone has been very malicious and politically motivated to say that these pictures are violating copyright. I believe the person is aligned to the UPP opposition. Ths malicious behaviour must stop. for the entire day, I have been recovering these violations...and the pictures have been posted for months now. The only organisation who has the right to say not to use those pictures is the Government of Antigua and Barbuda.

I have justified every single picture and I am waiting to see if this person continues on there parade to report pictures of individuals alligned to the new administration in Antigua and Barbuda. The pictures f the former prime minister was a total clear violation of copyright taken from a photographer in Venezuela....and I am sure no one reported that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jmoul Francis (talk • contribs) 18:42, 8 February 2015‎ (UTC)

Please take a moment to read Commons:Project scope/Summary to find out what this project is all about and what kind of content you can and cannot upload. The fact that a photo has been published on a web site does not mean that it in the public domain or that you can redistribute it with completely made-up licensing claims. You've claimed that these files were published by the copyright holder under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 4.0 International license. That is simply not true. Please understand that knowingly making false claims regarding the licensing of copyrighted works is illegal. I know absolutely nothing about the politics of Antigua and Barbuda, and I'm not aligned to the "UPP opposition", whatever that is. I do, however, know the rules of this project and the basics of international copyright law fairly well. I can assure you my actions are not politically motivated, but rather are intended to protect the integrity of this project, its reusers and you from your actions. —LX (talk, contribs) 19:29, 8 February 2015 (UTC)l

First of all, you make it seem that it was my intention to violate copyright policy. If I it was, I would have responded to these claims. The pictures that are available on a government website should be for public use. I am trying to find out if this website is making a profit from these pictures to determine the premise of these claims. The next issue could be that there was a misunderstanding of the copyright tag attached the pictures. I gathered that Creative Commons infers usage for non-commercial purposes...this is a website which aims to inform unless the planet is misguided about the legal status of this website. The next issue is about you feeling like I was personally attacking you. I was not...I know that you're not in Antigua or even been to the country. I thought that someone aligned to theoppostion reported the pictures...I found it very strange that there are so many pictures on this site from goverment websites and no one his asking for them to be pulled down or deleted. I will spend the rest of my evening going over these copyright terms since I know a bit more on this topic compared to the time I uploaded those pictures. I do know the parameters and I am questioning the validity of the claims. I would like to know if Wikipedia is a commercial website, and I would check to see if I classified the pictures under the wrong copyright tag. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jmoul Francis (talk • contribs) 20:10, 8 February 2015‎ (UTC)

Intentional or not, you were given plenty of notices with information on what the rules are and chose instead to make assumptions about malicious intentions and whatnot. You may feel that government works should be in the public domain or routinely published under a free license, but that doesn't make it so. It is the case in some countries, but far from all. Antigua and Barbuda does not seem to exempt government works from copyright protection by law, and http://www.ab.gov.ag/ contains an explicit "All rights reserved" copyright notice (which means they explicitly reserve the right to control who uses their works and how – exactly the opposite of free licensing).

Wikimedia Commons (this site) and Wikipedia are both operated by the Wikimedia Foundation, a nonprofit charitable organization. The term non-commercial is problematic, as it is not well-defined in most legal contexts, and some of the fund raising and promotional activities of the Foundation could be seen as "commercial" by some definitions. This is one reason content restricted to non-commercial use, such as content published under a Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial license (for example), is not allowed here. That's not really relevant here, though. These photos were not published under any Creative Commons license – neither the one you claimed nor one restricted to non-commercial uses. They are simply non-free photos grabbed from the Internet, which means you cannot use them commercially or non-commercially without the copyright holder's explicit permission. The only exception is fair use, and that doesn't apply here. —LX (talk, contribs) 21:31, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

I would like to draw your attention to Section 17 of The Copyright Act 2003 CAP 104 of Antigua and Barbuda (http://laws.gov.ag/acts/2003/a2003-22.pdf) which states that a PRIVATE PERSON (government is certainly not private) have the right not to have their work copied, exhibited, or broadcasted to the public. Therefore, this section infers that if works are commissioned a public person, there is the right to distribute publicly which effectually creates an attributed Creative Commons to the works in question. Furthermore, in Section 31, it prohibits the distribution of work for commercial purposes. Under Part VI of the Act...Section 51 and onwards deals with exemptions and fair use. You said that the question whether Wikipedia is commercial or not is neither here nor there; however, that is a very negligible statement when dealing with the question and grounds of Fair Use. If Wikipedia is a non-profit organisation, and it is mainly used for educational purposes, and if, in my case images published by a government website clearly for public use, then why is there an issue about infringement? The images are being used for educational purposes (falls into fair use and fair dealings), they are not being sold or used for profit, and certainly they are not being modified/altered.

The moral element is that the pictures have been referenced or references have been provided. On is point of referencing, it falls parallel to your claim. If Wikipedia obtains information from the same website, and makes a mere reference, using your logics, that too is an infringement. Therefore, ALL the information on Wikipedia is an infringement because most of the websites made reference to have "all rights reserved". This leads to my next point, where "all rights reserved" is not absolute...it is subject to exception such as, again, fair use. It seems like you're still taking this malice thing personally, again, IT WAS NOT DIRECTED AT YOU. What I now do find disturbing, is your claim about I have been warned many times. I opened up my email yesterday to a load of emails about "infringement" all at one time. To make it seem like it was a patterned behaviour of infringement over a period of time is very misleading and dishonest on your part.

I am sorry, but the reasoning of your claim is illogical based on that fact that the pictures in questions are being use on fair grounds and we're had and commission from a public organisation and not a private organisation. There have been many complaints I researched registered again individuals on Wikipedia who unfairly make claims, some even under the guise of a administrator. It is very difficult to for people to make such claims and not show their credentials; moreover, it is even very dubious when these so-called admins have their user names as abbreviations etc which is very unprofessional...which would lead one to think that someone is just being malicious. Who isLX, or Smooth O? Very unprofessional...furthermore, when I do look up for those names, you see websites of complaints against those names...so what would the reasonable person think of if they were in my position? Sure not anything different. My intentions were honest, but you make it out to seem like I was hell bent in breaking divine some law instead trying to make things right or seek clarity on the matter. It is said it's not what you say, it is how you bring it over. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jmoul Francis (talk • contribs) 03:21, 9 February 2015‎ (UTC)

Section 17 does not mention the word "private", and it's clear from 22 (6) that legal entities (which includes government entities) can hold copyright. I'm sorry, but your inferences are complete nonsense. Please see 17 U.S. Code § 105 for an example of what a real exemption for government works would look like. As for fair use, again, fair use content is not permitted on Wikimedia Commons. Wikimedia Commons is the site you are currently on. You are not on Wikipedia. Please read Commons:Project scope/Summary and try to understand what this project is about. —LX (talk, contribs) 15:18, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Apparently you cannot read an Act...you need to looking for 17 the number between 16 and 18 which outlines what I am talking about. My inferences are probably nonsense to you because maybe you're out of your depth and don't even understand copyright and the legal interpretation. If you were so knowledge about the law, you would realise that 1) I am subject to the laws within the jurisdiction in which the work was created, 2) laws and their format differ per jurisdiction, 3)to copy and paste some finding from a google search to show that how the law of a country should look all proves your incompetence on this matter. Furthermore the pictures in questions were posted to Wikipedia and not wikicommons...so there is confusion in terms of the so-called rules. This project seems to restrict what it wants on some faulty illogical premises through unknown agents such as your self. I will not even bother with this site any more, because your attitude alone shows incompetence, rudeness, and a lack of professionalism. I thinks after dealing with you, I would now like to agree win the site that listed the many complaints. I have dealt with other persons who are probably your colleagues (well, if you are because I spoke to them via email, and what you're saying is totally different from what they said, and certainly, their behaviour it's more professional. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jmoul Francis (talk • contribs) 15:59, 9 February 2015‎ (UTC)

You're raising a lot of issues in a rather unstructured way. I'll go point by point.

Apparently you cannot read an Act...you need to looking for 17 the number between 16 and 18 which outlines what I am talking about.

Section 17 states that "Subject to section 41, a person who for private and domestic purposes commissions the taking of a photograph or the making of a film has, where the resulting work is a protected work, the right not to have (a) copies of the work issued to the public; (b) the work exhibited or shown in public; or (c) the work broadcast or included in a cable programme service." What that means is that if you pay someone to take a photo, you as a client gain some of the rights that would normally remain with the photographer. It does not mean that government works are in the public domain. (Granted, it does mention the word "private"; what I meant to say is that it doesn't mention the term "private person".)

My inferences are probably nonsense to you because maybe you're out of your depth and don't even understand copyright and the legal interpretation.

No, your inferences are nonsense – period. You're referencing paragraphs that are completely irrelevant to the case you're making.

Furthermore the pictures in questions were posted to Wikipedia and not wikicommons...

I don't know what "wikicommons" is, but you're on Wikimedia Commons, not Wikipedia, and this is where you uploaded the files. Maybe you got here via a link from Wikipedia, but you're on Wikimedia Commons. Look at the address bar of your browser. It starts with https://commons.wikimedia.org, not http://[language].wikipedia.org. It's a good idea to get in the habit of understanding what site you're on so that you don't become a victim of phishing.

so there is confusion in terms of the so-called rules. This project seems to restrict what it wants on some faulty illogical premises

This project restricts what it wants because its purpose is to be a repository of free, educational media files that can be used by anyone for any purpose. There's nothing confused, fault or illogical about that – it's just a choice that those who set up the project made, and those of us who have chosen to join it liked. If you like the rules of this project (which aren't "so-called", they're actual rules decided through consensus among participants in the project), you're welcome to stay. If you don't, there are plenty of other sites that probably wouldn't have a problem with you uploading files like this, regardless of whether or not doing so is legal.

through unknown agents such as your self (just with a little more experience).

I'm not unknown. Although participants on this project have no obligation to do so, I state my identity clearly on my user page. Additionally, the Wikimedia Foundation has a scanned copy of my passport on file because of activities I volunteered for in the past. I want to make it clear, however, that I am not an agent or representative of the Wikimedia Commons project or the Wikimedia Foundation; I am merely a volunteer participant, just like yourself.

I will not even bother with this site any more, because your attitude alone shows incompetence, rudeness, and a lack of professionalism.

I'm sorry you feel that way. Please keep in mind that everyone you interact with here is a volunteer (which, by the dictionary definition, is the opposite of a professional), doing what we do because we care about this project and its goals. We're human beings, and we have good days and bad days. I've tried to respond appropriately, even when accused of acting maliciously with political motives. Different cultures communicate in different ways, and I'm aware that mine is more direct than others, but I do not agree that I've been rude to you.

I thinks after dealing with you, I would now like to agree win the site that listed the many complaints.

I have no idea what you're on about, and you haven't provided any links, so it's hard for me to comment on that.

I have dealt with other persons who are probably your colleagues (well, if you are because I spoke to them via email, and what you're saying is totally different from what they said, and certainly, their behaviour it's more professional.

Obviously, that's also too vague for me to comment on. Again, everyone you interact with here is a volunteer. If you think that I've acted inappropriately towards you in any way, you're free to bring it up at Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems or Commons:Village pump. —LX (talk, contribs) 18:01, 9 February 2015 (UTC)