User talk:JuTa

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


Marmara[edit]

Hi there. Should we not better spare the category name Marmara for the "Sea of Marmara" and not spend it generously for a moth or some other tiny animal? What do you think? Best. --E4024 (talk) 09:02, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Hi, I only smoved images of the sea across to the sea category and I dont see an moths in the sea category. But now I found i.e. Category:Marmara salictella, then it would be the best to make a Disambiguation out of Category:Marmara and create i.e Category:Marmara (moth). regards. --JuTa 09:11, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
... which I did now. regards. --JuTa 19:43, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Permissions for File:Römisches Kaisermedaillon.jpg[edit]

Would you please look at [Ticket#2016012810014848]. The permission is since last Tuesday alreaydy on the way to the ORTS-Team.


snip-------------------------

Ich erkläre in Bezug auf das Bild {{{Römisches Kaisermedaillon, Bildarchiv der Landeshauptstadt Mainz}}} {{{https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Römisches_Kaisermedaillon.jpg}}}, dass ich a) dessen Fotograf/in bin oder b) Inhaber/in des vollumfänglichen Nutzungsrechts oder c) die Inhaberin / den Inhaber eines vollumfänglichen Nutzungsrechtes rechtmäßig vertrete.

Ich erlaube hiermit jedermann die Weiternutzung des Bildes unter der freien Lizenz „Creative Commons Namensnennung-Weitergabe unter gleichen Bedingungen 4.0“ (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/deed.de).

Ich gewähre somit in urheberrechtlicher Hinsicht Dritten das Recht, das Bild (auch gewerblich) zu nutzen und zu verändern, sofern sie die Lizenzbedingungen wahren. Mir ist bekannt, dass ich diese Einwilligung üblicherweise nicht widerrufen kann.

Mir ist bekannt, dass sich die Unterstellung unter eine freie Lizenz nur auf das Urheberrecht bezieht und es mir daher unbenommen ist, aufgrund anderer Gesetze (Persönlichkeitsrecht, Markenrecht usw.) gegen Dritte vorzugehen, die das Bild im Rahmen der freien Lizenz rechtmäßig, aufgrund der anderen Gesetze aber unrechtmäßig nutzen.

Gleichwohl erwerbe ich keinen Anspruch darauf, dass das Bild dauerhaft auf der Wikipedia eingestellt wird.

{{{26.01.2016}}}, {{{Sibylle v. Roesgen, Leiterin Protokoll}}} Ich erkläre in Bezug auf das Bild {{{Römisches Kaisermedaillon, Bildarchiv der Landeshauptstadt Mainz}}} {{{https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Römisches_Kaisermedaillon.jpg}}}, dass ich a) dessen Fotograf/in bin oder b) Inhaber/in des vollumfänglichen Nutzungsrechts oder c) die Inhaberin / den Inhaber eines vollumfänglichen Nutzungsrechtes rechtmäßig vertrete.

Ich erlaube hiermit jedermann die Weiternutzung des Bildes unter der freien Lizenz „Creative Commons Namensnennung-Weitergabe unter gleichen Bedingungen 4.0“ (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/deed.de).

Ich gewähre somit in urheberrechtlicher Hinsicht Dritten das Recht, das Bild (auch gewerblich) zu nutzen und zu verändern, sofern sie die Lizenzbedingungen wahren. Mir ist bekannt, dass ich diese Einwilligung üblicherweise nicht widerrufen kann.

Mir ist bekannt, dass sich die Unterstellung unter eine freie Lizenz nur auf das Urheberrecht bezieht und es mir daher unbenommen ist, aufgrund anderer Gesetze (Persönlichkeitsrecht, Markenrecht usw.) gegen Dritte vorzugehen, die das Bild im Rahmen der freien Lizenz rechtmäßig, aufgrund der anderen Gesetze aber unrechtmäßig nutzen.

Gleichwohl erwerbe ich keinen Anspruch darauf, dass das Bild dauerhaft auf der Wikipedia eingestellt wird.

{{{26.01.2016}}}, {{{Sibylle v. Roesgen, Leiterin Protokoll}}}


snap----------------------------

Sincerely --Nixnubix (talk) 09:21, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

Hallo, jedes Bild auf Commons braucht einen validen Lizenz-Baustein. Dass eine Freigabemail verschickt wurde ändert daran nichts. Und eben der fehlt(e) bei diesem Bild immer noch. Da aus der hier zitietrten Mail hervorgeht welche Lizenz die Urheberrechtsinhaberin gewählt hat, nämlich {{cc-by-sa-4.0}}, verbesse ich die Bildbeschreibungsseite jetzt - siehe hier, und möchte Dich bitten das in ähnlichen Fällen zukünftig selbst zu tun. Gruß --JuTa 09:34, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

File:AANR Logo 2016.jpg[edit]

You have deleted the logo for my organization. It is very hard to understand how to properly tag our copyrighted logo. I have read a LOT of the information here, and it still doesn't make sense. I did not create this logo; one of our staff memembers (employees) did. I don't think our staff members would understand what kind of tag to use. I am a corporate officer of this organization, so I have the authority to post it on the Wikipedia page that describes our organization (American Association for Nude Recreation). But how do I do it?

Hi, if you are the copyright holder, you can choose any suitable free license you like out of Commons:Copyright tags - {{cc-by-sa-4.0}} is recommanded, but you have to choose one, which you didn't yet. For such logos I allways recommand to confirm your copyright by sending an email to the commons support. For details pls. see Commons:OTRS. You should indicate that such a mail has been sent by using the template {{OTRS pending}} on the file description page, best by typing {{subst:OP}} to the permission line of the description. regards. --JuTa 15:15, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Mariana Ochoa H[edit]

لماذا رشحتها للحذف السريع، هي مرخصة بترخيص مناسب JonesTX (talk) 03:08, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

I started a regular deletion request because I suspect Commons:flickr washing because the image was allready deleted twice here and its spread around the internet before it was uploaded to flickr. --JuTa 03:14, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
FYI, the image is from a 2009 photoshoot for a Mexican men's magazine. See https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Az87RIv52Uw at about 1:56, where she's wearing underwear, but in front of the exact same background. I'd link the actual source for the image (actually, a higher quality image of the same photo with a watermark) but it's behind a 'you must be 18 or above' firewall, and the page includes a substantial amount of porn. It can be found in TinEye, however. The copyright claim on Flickr is obviously bogus.... based on comparing the images, it looks it was modified to remove the watermark, and in the process the colors were messed up. Revent (talk) 08:40, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Previous deletions[edit]

The uploads https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:ListFiles/Nepalmtb were previously deleted by you. They have now been cleaned of any data that previously showed the author and copyright holder. Secondarywaltz (talk) 05:39, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Thx, I marked them as copyright violations again. --JuTa 07:30, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
Hi. Sorry I am new to this. The first photo was uploaded with permission from the photgrapher. The second one that was deleted is my own photo that I took using my own camera with permission from the subject. I removed the copyright information as I assumed any photo with copyright information would be deleted like my first one was. Should I upload the image again with full photo data? The only other place this image has been used on the internet or anywhere is on the subject's facebook profile: https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10152448623041194&set=a.423064896193.197954.502011193&type=3&theater. -- User:Nepalmtb User talk:Nepalmtb 08:47, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
Hi. I have re-uploaded the photo to Wikimedia Commons. Hopefully all requirements are now met. Let me know if there's any issues and I'll try to solve it. Sorry again, I'm very new here --User:Nepalmtb User talk:Nepalmtb 11:08, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
Hi Nepalmtb, if you like to upload photos not shot by yourself or even shot by yourself but previously published elsewhere (i.e. on facebook) you should allways go through the so called OTRS process, which means that the copyright holder sends an email to the commons support team, releasing the image(s) under a free license of his choice. Once the mail has been sent you better put the template [[tl|OTRS pending}} onto the file description page, which will prevent deletion for about 2 months or until the case will be decided as vali or invalid. regards. --JuTa 19:30, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Siegel der Loge Zur edlen Aussicht.jpg[edit]

Hi JuTA, deine Löschanzeige ist für mich nicht nachvollziehbar. Das Bild wurde von mir erstellt. Der Bildinhalt unterliegt PD-old-70-1923, da das Siegel aus dem Jahr 1784 stammt. Für einen kurzen Hinweis wäre ich dankbar.--Hiram Abiff (talk) 09:29, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Hallo, meist sind solche Logos, Siegel und ähnliches vom Hochlader von irgendwoher aus dem Internet kopiert, darum erschien mir "eigenes Werk" unglaubwürdich. Dieses Siegel finde ich beispielsweise auch hier. Falls Du es wirklich selbst erstellt/gezeichnet hast, solltest Du angeben nach welcher Vorlage/Quelle. Und wenn es "einfach" nur nachgezeichnet ist, wäre es dann wohl {{PD-old-70-1923}} und nicht {{cc-by-sa-4.0}}. Gruß --JuTa 09:48, 6 February 2016 (UTC)


https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Omanreagan[edit]

Hi - why did you delete all of the images I uploaded? These are my photographs of my own work. What do you mean by no permission? Whose permission is needed to upload content that I created entirely myself? Omanreagan (talk) 21:33, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

For images of modern art work we generaly uploaded by the artist himself we generally need a confirmation through the so called OTRS process, which means that ou have to send an email to the commons support team, releasing those images under a free license of your choice. The reason behind is that the vast majority of those images get uploaded whithout the atist permission, which would be a copyright violation. Its otherwise not possible to prove if you are realy the artist himself or just anybody else only claiming to be him. Anybody could i.e. create a commons User:Michael Oman-Reagan and we have ho chance to prove who is realy behind it. regards. If you send those mails to the support team, the images will likely get undeleted if everything checks out OK. --JuTa 21:54, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

File:Rail pass.png[edit]

I dont understand the motivation for the deletion. `no source` I suspect that the file a picture was of a rail pass ticket (Een deels ingevulde Rail Pass / A partialy filled Rail Pass ticket). The source is self evidently a Rail ticket issued by the Belgian SNCB rail compagny. I suspect the real reason is that as by many rail tickets there is problaby an SNCB logo on the ticket. If this is the case, the reason should be correctly mentioned.Smiley.toerist (talk) 22:05, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

The problem is that the image was initialy upoaded completely without a source and without using the {{description}} template. We don't know if it was i.e. self scanned by the uploader or copied from any 3rd party websites. There is even some text printed on the rail pass which might be considered as copyright protected as well. You may like to ask User:Ellin Beltz, who marked it as no source, for her reasons. --JuTa 22:14, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
Hi: The only information available was == Summary ==NMBS rail pass== Licensing =={{PD-self}}. Since the rail pass was not published by an individual, therefore it is not own work. Not being own work leaves it with no source (which is where it started). There was sufficient text on the ticket to consider a text copyright, and COM:EVID requires source & license information from the uploader. Cheers! Ellin Beltz (talk) 00:12, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

I have my own Rail Pass example. There are railway printed compagny logo´s and special company paper is used. As the pass is valid for a year a good reproduction backside and frontside could even be used fraudulently. For this reason there is no need to undelete. However I have problems with the reasoning used for the delete. For the licensing there are two parts:

  • The picturetaker/scanner
  • The creative work itself (artwork, postcard, document)

In practice the first part is only important if it is creative work on its own. A scan of a document or postcard is not considered creative work and is not treated as such. There are even cases in the Commons whereby an old PD postcard is scanned from a book. The strong preference is to take scan of an original postcard and certainly not to use a recently published book. For a picture taken in a museum of a painting, the first part of the licensing also has to be considered. But even there the art template (the only licensing template wich really uses both parts) is nearly never used. The wording not own-work implies that the picturetaker is not making creative work. The source can be filled in with a description of what it is: postcard, railway company ticket, etc. And any extra information such as postcard publishing compagny, museum, private collection etc.Smiley.toerist (talk) 10:15, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

Dave Willis[edit]

Hi! In January you deleted Dave Willis 1.jpg, and also … 2.jpg, … 3.jpg, … 4.jpg; I think Denniss got … 5.jpg. Apparently acceptable permission for these five has now come through from Mr. Willis, who asserts creation/sole ownership. Ticket number is 2015121110020406, licence is dual (CC-BY-SA 3.0/GFDL). Is that now all in order? Regards, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 19:26, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

Hi, as soon as OTRS-stuff has processed the case the files will get undeleted. Please be patient as this process can take weeks or even months. PS: I am not a member of the OTRS-group. Perhaps you like to ask on Commons:OTRS noticeboard for this case. regards. --JuTa 22:06, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

Files[edit]

Hi JuTa, A couple of days ago I tagged File:РАФ-22038-21 2.jpg and File:РАФ-22038-21 3.jpg as No Permission and another editor had tagged File:РАФ-22038-21.jpg as No Permission ... Well the uploader has since gone to OTRS and the last image was saved,
As you were the deleter would there be any chance you could undelete the first 2 images so I can ask the uploader to do the whole OTRS thing for the 2 other images ?
Thanks, –Davey2010Talk 20:35, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

Hi, its posible to go through the OTRS process even when the images are deleted. They will get undeleted as soon the case will be decided as valid by OTRS stuff. regards. --JuTa 22:09, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
Hi, But the OTRS staff aren't going to have any idea about the images and I'd imagine like myself (until now) the uploader would have no idea about the fact OTRS can do it all undeleted, It seems easier if the images were undeleted so I can then ask the editor to confirm the permission .,.... Thanks, –Davey2010Talk 23:11, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
Well, a lot of OTRS members are admins as well and can see the deleted versions. But anyhow I undeleted the files and renewed the problem tags. Please replace them with {{subst:OP}} as soon as you know the mail has been sent. --JuTa 23:17, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
Brilliant JuTa thanks so so much! :), Okie dokie will do, Thanks again - It's very much appreciated :) –Davey2010Talk 23:19, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

Editathon Categories[edit]

Hello there JuTa -- You deleted a category that we created as a placeholder for a local Wikipedia chapter Editathon. We are going to be using these but they may not get populated right away. Could you give us at least a week after the event is finished before deleting these? I am going to have to go an re-create the page now to upload pictures. It would be much appreciated. Thanks -- Erika, Wikimedia NYC Secretary aka BrillLyle (talk) 21:17, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

Well, I'm checking Special:UncategorizedCategories from time to time. This was an completly empty category, no description, no parent categories, no images sorted into. So I deleted it. For the future: Please give as mininum some sensefull parent categories, them they will likely never come to my attention. And to ensure a cat will not be deleted even if being empty: use the template {{empty category}}. regards. --JuTa 00:29, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

File:Nicolaas Witsen. Pontus Euxinus of niewe en naaukeurige paskaart van de zwarte zee uyt verscheydene stucken van die gewelten toegesonden, ontworpen door (18th century) Gulf of Burgas Part.jpg[edit]

A split would be redundant, the full image is at File:Nicolaas Witsen. Pontus Euxinus of niewe en naaukeurige paskaart van de zwarte zee uyt verscheydene stucken van die gewelten toegesonden, ontworpen door (18th century).jpg (I added crosslinks). The uploader created a duplicate and then cropped it. Revent (talk) 11:05, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

OK, thx. --JuTa 16:05, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

File:The Dutch in 1984 - foto Guus Born.jpg[edit]

Dear JuTa,

A good day to you! You removed a picture called "The Dutch in 1984 - foto Guus Born.jpg" from the page "The Dutch (band)". Maybe you can help me restore the picture. I sent the following e-mail from Guus Born toe the permissions mailbox:

I can't remember how the filename was altered, but I'ld like to use Mr Born's permission for this photo to restore or upload it again. Will that work?

Kind regards, 2001:983:FBD2:1:C50B:22BD:5D2E:BA87 11:07, 9 February 2016 (UTC)Hans Croon

Hi, I undeteled the file now and put the template {{OTRS pending}} onto the description page, which you missed todo before. By that reason I had no chance to indicate such a release is in progress. regards. --JuTa 16:13, 9 February 2016 (UTC)