User talk:JuTa/Archive 08

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to: navigation, search
Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.


You did it! I will write later — Preceding unsigned comment added by Сирык Игорь (talk • contribs) 2013-04-15T05:44:23‎ (UTC)

There was just no license template applied. Which free license bcaus of which reason do you think apllies? (See: Commons:Licensing). --JuTa 18:05, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Picture of an ancient Egyptian papyrus - how can that be in copyright?

Hello - you have left a me a message saying "This media file does not have sufficient information on its copyright status. Unless the copyright status is provided, the file will be deleted seven days after this template was added." It is a photo of an ancient Egyptian papyrus from 250 AD. What more information could there be that it is not in copyright?Smeat75 (talk) 01:42, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

I refer to [[1]]. I have put a tag on it for a photo of a work of art more than a hundred years old, that is not exactly right, but it is the closest I could find for an ancient manuscript one thousand, seven hundred and sixty three years old.Smeat75 (talk) 02:02, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
Theoretically, there can be creative content for the photographer if the papyrus is sufficiently three dimensional for a credible claim that this is more than a scan (in this regard, ancient papyrus can be seen as different from modern paper, depending on its construction). In this case, I doubt such an argument could be made. Thanks -- (talk) 07:29, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
The main point was: There was ust no license template used on the file description page. You corrected that later and the problem was solved. --JuTa 07:32, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

File:Area of Great Toronto Fire of 1904 showing the Wholesale district affected (MAPS-R-71).jpg

Good morning, I uploaded a map from our digital archive to the Commons for an article on the Great Toronto Fire of 1904 in the commons and then linked it to the English and French articles on same.

The map is in the public domain (and is so licensed on our site) but last night you ( flagged it as eligible for speedy deletion!

I must have filled out something wrong, because the file is explicitly in the public domain.

I edited the file to remove this template

Remove this line and insert a license instead|year=2013|month=04|day=13 

and replaced it with PD-1923 , but that license produces a message that says it's out of copyright in the United States.

Is that correct, even though it's in the public domain in Canada?

Do I now remove the no license|month=April|day=15|year=2013 template? Or do I ask you to do it? (Not sure how this works, eh.)

I used the template and thought I had done everything correctly. Sorry for messing up -- can you help me understand what I did wrong? I would like to avoid this problem in the future.

Torlib (talk) 15:26, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Hi, its OK now. The problem was that you used just no license template. I've corrected the license {{PD-old-100}} as the author died 1910. {{PD-1923}} is only for firstly in the USA published works, as Toronto in in Canada this one is likely first pubished in Canada. regards --JuTa 15:33, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
Thank you! I have spent the morning puzzling this out! Can you tell me which is preferable PD-old-100 or PD-old-100 (because in Canada it's death+50)? Or should I use PD-old-50-1923? and can I use PD-Canada at all? Is more than one license allowed? I ask because I have a lot of public domain items that would be great on the Commons and need to understand the subtleties so I don't keep causing problems. Thank you, JuTa. Torlib (talk) 18:06, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
Well, the {{PD-old-100}} is the savest one for work where the author more than 100 year dead. There are countries (i.e. Mexico) where works are protected until 100 years after authors death. You can user multiple licenses i.e.{{PD-Canada}} and {{PD-1923}} if both applies. Ceers. --JuTa 18:03, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
Many thanks! Torlib (talk) 18:06, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

File:In Search Of La Che (Blank).jpg

Hi. Can you explain to me why this file was taken down. As far as I was aware when it was uploaded, the necessary permissions were given. Seems to have been removed rather quickly without any discussion or attempt to rectify the problem. --TheDeadRat (talk) 02:09, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Well it was marked by user:russavia as "no permission" at 8. April. It was the only contribution of the uploader and is widely spread over the internet (compare i.e. [2]). It is highly doubtfull that this is realy own work by th uploader, but likely copied from anywhere in the internet. regards. --JuTa 02:20, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Foto Virgina Perez de la Puente

Hi JuTa, i recieved this in the article about Virgina Perez de la Puente (it's the first time i upload a photo in wikipedia):

06:59 12 abr 2013‎ CommonsDelinker (discusión · contribuciones)‎ m . . (9 260 bytes) (-13)‎ . . (Bot: Eliminando "File:Virginia1.jpg". Borrado en Commons por JuTa. (No license since 2013-04-04. Please read the intro of commons:COM:L, about essential information and about [[commons:COM:...) (deshacer)

I don't know how i can make the photo free or common use, or whitout license.

I used this photo because the writer (Virginia) allowed me to use it; she knows that this photo was going to be used for the wikipedia. I don't know who is the person who made the photo, but is own by Virginia Perez de la Puente.

Hope you can help me, thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vhikthor (talk • contribs) 2013-04-18T23:18:49‎ (UTC)

Hi, every image on Commons needs a license-tag, which makes it reuseable for everybody in the world for any purpose, which was completely missing in your case. It looked like you just copied it from the internet. If you can find th fotografer (or copright holder) you could ask him to send a release email to the commons support team (see COM:OTRS). If everything checks out OK the file will be undeleted. regards --JuTa 06:23, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Licence pictures

Hello JuTa, I have put the right licence to the following pictures:

Should i remove the banner? Will you do?

GreatingsPatu nl (talk) 20:19, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Hi,I removed the problem tag now. But pls. change the date field on the description pages. The original date (or year) od creation of the (art)work is required here, not the date of th upload to commons. regards --JuTa 20:26, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for your fast response! The original date of produktion is placed on the desciption field. Patu nl (talk) 20:50, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Deleted Images

Hey JuTa

You seem to have deleted my images from

I have replied to the MediaWiki Mail messages of 9th April on the 9th April stating:

Yes I as the author grant permission for whatever is needed to keep this image in the public domain.

Please undelete the files that have been deleted.

Kieran -=- — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk • contribs) 2013-04-20T02:16:18‎ (UTC)

Hmm, according the first version of the files were Reproduced with permission from Heggie JCP, Liddell NA & Maher KP, 2001, Applied Imaging Technology, 4th Edition. Maher KP might be identical to your useraccount User:Kieranmaher, might be not. You would need to confirm this by sending an emailto the commons support team (see COM:OTRS). I think they will ask for a permission of the Co-authors Heggie JCP and Liddell NA as well. So be prepared for that. If everything checks out OK they will undelete the files. (PS: please log in with your useraccount) regards --JuTa 03:00, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

You've seriously messed up

You've messed up a really good chapter on digital radiography at

I've e-mailed about this act you carried out without my permission. I've also tried to re-upload one of the files you deleted without success. Just a whole load of bureaucratic garbage that is impossible to follow.

Please re-instate the images you've deleted

k -=- — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kieranmaher (talk • contribs) 2013-04-21T01:36:29‎ (UTC)

Without permission is correct but not in the way you think - you stated the image was upoaded with permission of the original copyright holder but there was no evidence of this permission given. A permission request was placed on your talk page but no reaction = file deleted. There are even more of your images from the same source and without evidence of permission.--Denniss (talk) 01:46, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
I only can repeat what I wrote in the section above. Please send a releasing email to COM:OTRS. regards --JuTa 06:50, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

on the basis of this pathetic response, I will tomorrow delete every contribution I have made so far to wikibooks and corrupt all files including Basic Physics of Digital Radiography and Basic Physics of Nuclear Medicine (a featured wikibook!). I will leave untouched any changes made by other sources. Stick your rules up.... and see

k Kieranmaher (talk) 07:45, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Two images

File:Artificially flattened Skull of ancient Peruvian.jpg File:Deformed Skull of an Infant.jpg I have scaned those images from an old bog, from 1880. Why have you deleted them?Jesper7 (talk) 17:04, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Because there was just no license template used on the desription pages (see Commons:Licensing). Every image on Commons needs to have one declaring its copyright status. A long, but not complete list you can find at Commons:Copyright tags. I have restored the images and corrected that now - see here and here. PS: what does the source Fashion in Deformity mean? Could you change this to something more comprehensible? And pls. try to apply a correct license tag directly next time. regards --JuTa 18:41, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

{{FOP}} vs country-specific FoP tags

Hi JuTa

Commons:Village pump/Copyright#FOP is not redundant to country specific FoP tags

Inspired by this edit. Is it me or do the different templates actually say different things? It's really confusing –⁠moogsi (blah) 19:06, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Well, for me they are redundant. The {{FOP}} is just a general template telling that there are countries with and without FOP and one should be carefull where the object is located. The country specific ones declaring FOP situation in the specific country. In Autumn last year I sorted many thousend images from general FOP into the country specific ones and created a lot of country-FOP-templates based on COM:FOP without any complaints. During that I found several images out of non-FOP-countries like France or Belgium where the general template was applied and started a DR for them. I now keeping an eye on Category:FOP and sorting new images in into the countries. BTW: I cannot find the village pump thread you refering to; where is it? ceers --JuTa 19:23, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
It just got archived: Commons:Village_pump/Copyright/Archive/2013/04#.7B.7BFOP.7D.7D_is_not_redundant_to_country_specific_FoP_tags. As stated there, I don't think they actually say the same thing –⁠moogsi (blah) 19:44, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
Ahh, I see, thx. Well, I have a different view but feel free to include the warning into the 80+ country specific templates. I had the impression that I'm on the right way cause I realy very rarely saw both templates on an image and I have checked and modified more then 12000 some months ago as far as I remember. regards --JuTa 19:52, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
It just struck me that the warning about reuse and the copyright warning are absent from the country tags. If it's not anything that anyone else cares about then I'm not going to be in a rush to do anything about it :) Thanks, –⁠moogsi (blah) 20:00, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Deleted File:Tesis Oxford (ANM).pdf

Hey Juta, wie gehts?

You recently deleted a file I uploaded ("Tesis Oxford (ANM).pdf"), which is a thesis written by someone I know, who happens to be the subject of a Wikipedia article I wrote (on his behalf). It is his interest to display it on his profile. It is the thesis he wrote as part of his master's degree. What do I need to do to undelete it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rafawar (talk • contribs) 2013-04-25T01:35:15‎ (UTC)

Hi, the author and/or copyright holder of the pdf has to send a releasing email to the commons support team (see Commons:OTRS). If everything checks out OK they will undelete the file. regards --JuTa 06:41, 25 April 2013 (UTC)


Why did you remove my own photo --Mirzoulug'bek 17:57, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

Because you didn't provided a license - see Commons:Licensing. Every image on Commons needs a valid license tag - you find a list of them under Commons:Copyright tags. If the images (I know a lot of) ar your own work (you shoot them with a camera) and you promise to modify the desription pages to provide a valid license tag shortly, I could offer you to undelete the images. regards --JuTa 18:03, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

Bantayan Island File:Daanbantayan Map.jpg

As I explained in the licensing section of the file, this work was released into the public domain by virtue of its being the work of a Philippines government body. See Republic Act No. 8293. Therefore you need to undelete it. Johnmperry (talk) 11:19, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Hi, the only philipine PD-template i can find is {{PD-Philippines}}, which does not state anything about govermental works. The english article you named states: ... However, it also specifies that prior approval of the government agency or office wherein the work is created is necessary for exploitation of government works for profit..., which sounds to me that commercial reusage needs to be approved by the goverment. This is not free enough for commons, because any image on commons has to be even commercially reusable. But might be I'm wrong in that case. Feel free to raise a Commons:Undeletion request. regards. --JuTa 19:46, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Files deleted

Hi JuTa, You have deleted two files, File:Atlantis 24 m - surface WEB.jpg and File:Top of 4m pinnacle Atlantis 2 WEB.jpg with comment ‎(OTRS received since 2013-03-26 but not confirmed). What does this mean? I forwarded an email to OTRS from the author with permission. If you wanted to contact the author to confirm the permission his e-mail address was in the forwarded e-mail. · · · Peter (Southwood) (talk): 14:19, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Hello, well the reason was the release was not confirmed by an OTRS member for more than a month. I am not such a member I'm "just" working on some old backlocks. Normaly an OTRS member sets the template {{OTRS received}} when he/she starts working on a case but is "not happy" with it. They normaly reply per mail with addionaly question and/or comments. Did you or the copywight holder received such a reply? As far as I can see on the (deleted too) talkpage the release to {{cc-by-sa-3.0}} was not clearly stated by the copright holder. He just wrote "You can use it on Commons" which is not enough. But you may like to ask the OTRS volounteers themself on Commons:OTRS noticeboard for details of this case. If the release was valid they will undelete the files. Don't forget to name the image names and the ticket number Ticket:2013010910010606. regards --JuTa 10:04, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Foto von Hermann Lietz

Hallo JuTa, vielleicht hast nicht Du bemerkt, dass Deine Beanstandung zum Foto von HL obsolet ist. Grund: 1. das Foto ist 100 Jahre alt, d.h. es ist gemeinfrei 2. das Foto hat eine Quelle, das Archiv der Hermann Lietz-Schule, dessen Gründer HL war und welches nach Anmeldung für Recherche zur Verfügung steht, und 3. es gibt dazu bisher keinen Weblink. Mein Upload ist der erste Weblink zu diesem Bild, da es ein Original ist. Der Hinweis im Formbrief auf andere Uploads, die ich eingestellt habe, trifft in gleicher Weise zu. Im Sinne von Wikipedia stelle ich zur Verfügung, was schon vorhanden ist, aber noch nicht allgemein verfügbar. Bitte also kein Revert.Danke.--Gabrikla (talk) 19:00, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Hallo, jedes Bild auf Commons muss eine sog. Lizenz-Vorlage enthalten, die den Copyright-Status des Bildes zutreffend beschreibt. Bei diesem Bild (File:Hermann Lietz ca. 1913.tif) fehlt dies leider komplett. Eine Liste solcher Vorlagen findest Du unter Commons:Copyright tags. Ein Bild wird nicht nach 100 Jahren gemeinfrei, sondern nach 70 Jahren nach dm Tod des Fotografen. Wenn z.B. in 30-jähriger 1913 ein Foto schießt, wäre er 1942 (z.Z. das "Stichdatum" für Gemeinfreiheit) 59 Jahre alt gewesen, und hätte locker noch 20 oder 30 Jahre danach leben können. Bei diesem Bild könnte {{Anonymous-EU}} passen. Das setzt aber vorraus, dass das Bild wirklich anonym gemacht und veröffentlicht wurde. Ein "ich kenne den Fotografen oder Urheber nicht" reicht hier nicht aus, und weitere Recherchen nach dem Urheber sind hier i.d.R. notwendig. Ich möchte Dich daher bitten diese Recherchen zu unternehmen und anschließend, falls zutreffend, dies Vorlage auf die Bildbeschrungsseite zu setzen, also das {{Remove this line and insert a license instead|year=2013|month=04|day=22}} durch {{Anonymous-EU}} zu ersetzen. Dann kannst Du auch gleich "oben" das {{no license|month=May|day=4|year=2013}} entfernen. Gruß --JuTa 08:57, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

File:Bronze square ding (cauldron) with human faces 01.jpg

Thank you for your comprehension. The image is simply derived from the original one, taken in the museum, and for this reason not very sharp, distorded, with very strange colors. I simply used Photoshop to correct this image of an important tresure of China. Was it necessary to distroy it ?

Sorry to answer your demand so late, but my wife is very sick. Kind regards from Lyon (France), Ismoon (talk) 22:20, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Hi, the problem with that image was the the fotografer, user:smartneddy, never set a license-tag to that image. Nobody else that the fotografer and the copyright holder can release an image under a free license. You "just" uploaded an improved version of that image. Unfortunalely this missing license was not noticed for a long time until I found it in Category:Media without a license: needs history check and marked it as "no license" on 31. March. You and Smartneddy got a notice about that, but Smartneddy didn't applied a license. So the image got deleted one week after. I'm sorry. Regards. --JuTa 09:15, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

File:Piramide Naos.jpg

Hello The image File: Piramide Naos.jpg has been obtained in official and public site. In can be read, in the last line "Reproduction of all or part of the contents of the Website, provided that their source is acknowledged explicitly " Thanks, greetings -- 08:25, 5 May 2013 (UTC) Sorry: --AngelHM (talk) 08:26, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Hi, as the painter Ignacio Pinazo Camarlench died 1916, this image is in th public domain. I now corrected that on the image description page (see here). But I like to ask you to directly apply correct license tags in future during upload. A list of possible tags you can find at Commons:Copyright tags. regards. --JuTa 09:24, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

File:PJ Winter 2013.jpg

Please help me figure out the correct license for the photo you tagged:

The photo was taken by a friend and she gave me all rights to it. That is evidenced in an email from her (in my email). I see where I am supposed to insert the correct license but I can't figure what the licensing should be - thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PJ2013 (talk • contribs) 2013-05-05T12:08:15‎ (UTC)

Hi, your friend should send an email to the Commons-Support-Team (see Commons:OTRS). A recommanded license is {{cc-by-sa-3.0}}. A list of possible license you can find at Commons:copyright tags. As soon the mail to the Support-Team was send you can set the template {{OTRS pending}} this will prevent deleting the file for (currently) 50 days. regards. --JuTa 12:15, 5 May 2013 (UTC)


I have no idea what it is you want me to do to prevent the deletion of the image, since you have not bothered to tell me, but as Dawson's Acadian Geology was published in 1878, images from it are definitely out of copyright.

If you will inform me what it is you want me to do to prevent the deletion of this non-copyright image, I shall do it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Actualist (talk • contribs) 2013-05-05T17:20:24‎ (UTC)

Hi, the problem was that there was no license template. You fixed that and the problem is solved now. regards --JuTa 17:51, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Cloudera logo copyright/trademark status

Regarding the Cloudera logo, can you tell me what you need from me to not delete this file?

This is the current logo for this company and replaces the old logo. In fact, the old logo has basically the same copyright information. That is here:

I've tried to find other examples of where people have uploaded corporate logos to see how they've licensed them and they don't seem to really have any additional licensing information. For example:

Doesn't seem to have any information on trademark status; just links to pages where the image shows up on the website. The author is listed as Microsoft, but the uploader appears to just be another user.

Also doesn't seem to have any info on trademark status; once again, a description, link to source and upload date. But again, author listed as google, but appears to have just been uploaded by user.

Another way to look at this would be to ask "what is present in the previous version of this logo that is missing from this version?" That previous version is here: That seems to have very similar licensing information. Is the key bit of information that there is a link to the source? I can add that link if that will address the issue.

Hi, the problem was that there was just no valid license template at all. Every image on commons needs a license template decribing its copyright status. I have corrected that now (see [3]. But please try to apply correct license template yourself next time. regards --JuTa 20:13, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Updated the license...


Updated the license for

PLEASE let me know if there's anything else I need. I'm trying to help her get an incorrect picture off the bio box at Google: See the right box.... b&w lady is not her.

It was suggested in a Google forum that we update the pic on her Wikipedia profile to straighten that out.

Thanks so much.

M — Preceding unsigned comment added by Markmarshallmusic (talk • contribs) 2013-05-06T22:12:59‎ (UTC)

No, I'm sorry, but that is not a valid license. Just because a picture is available in the internet does not mean it is public domain. By default every image is copyright protected unless otherwise stated. You would need to find out the fotografer and ask him/her to send a releasing mail to the commons support team. For details see COM:OTRS. regards. --JuTa 22:18, 6 May 2013 (UTC)


I have added license/copyright information to the above file. The image is a public domain two-dimensional image of an old (1887) painting, with plain text superimposed. Please take a look and see if I applied the templates properly. If not please provide some guidance for placing the appropriate tags.MrBill3 (talk) 05:23, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Hi, that looks good, but I would remove the {{PD-textlogo}} because the paiting isn't text. regards --JuTa 07:19, 7 May 2013 (UTC)


Hi JuTa, hope you're well. This user is being pretty unreasonable here on my talk page, and if you have a moment, I could definitely use some help. Thanks, FASTILY 20:23, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

I tried my best. regards. --JuTa 21:30, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

re: permission to use "sue2002.jpg"

Hello JuTa,

I have received permission from the owner of sue2002.jpg. The owner is Lief Sorbye of the Tempest band. He gave permission via email for it to be used in the article below: I have uploaded a copy of that email to google docs and the link to that copy is: I've been trying to figure out how to include that link, as the wikimedia page indicates it wants that link on that page ("If you have created this file yourself, you can choose to license under one of the allowed licenses at the licensing page. If you did not create it, you must usually ask the copyright holder for permission to release it under one of the allowed licenses, and the written permission (or a link to it) must also be provided on this page")

First of all, is the copy of the email I provided a link adequate evidence of permission?

If indeed it IS adequate, can you help my by explaining to me how I can provide the link on the page requested?

Thanks very much for your attention and for your help. Akhooha (talk) 20:07, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

P.S. I've just rec'd another photo permission by email (this one from a photographer turned lawyer specializing in intellectual property no less). If links to copies of email permissions are adequate, how can I include those during the upload process? Thank you. Akhooha (talk) 20:26, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Hi, generally you should forward such emails to the commons support team - see Commons:OTRS. But this email is not enough. Every image on commons needs to be reusable by anybody in the world for any purpose, and "your" release is just for one wikipedia article. Maybe you can upload it directly to english wikipedia under so called fair use - see en:Wikipedia:Fair use. But I'm not familiar with the rules of the english wikipdia. Maybe you ask better on en:Wikipedia:Village pump before. regards --JuTa 20:32, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for your quick reply. From what I've been reading in the links you've provided me, it would seem that upshot of it all is that the photo cannot appear in Wikipedia unless the owner relinquishes all intellectual property rights and leaves it available for "free use". Am I correct in coming to this conclusion?
Akhooha (talk) 21:40, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
Yes. A recommaned license is {{cc-by-sa-3.0}}. regads --JuTa 21:42, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Diese Datei könnte gelöscht werden

Hallo JuTa,

ich bin neu auf Wikimedia. Du hast meine Bilder mit "Diese Datei könnte gelöscht werden" markiert, da keine korrekte Lizenz angegeben war. Ich habe jetzt die Lizenz eingearbeitet und bei mir erscheinen auch keine Fehler.

Falls meine Änderungen das Problem nicht lösen sollten bitte folgende Files nicht sofort löschen:



Schloss Sankt Georgen an der Stiefing Rittersaal.jpg

Schloss Sankt Georgen an der Stiefing Westansicht.jpg

Falls noch was fehlen sollte wäre eine kurze Info hilfreich.

Vielen Dank! Creativegarden — Preceding unsigned comment added by Creativegarden (talk • contribs) 2013-05-11T08:06:47‎ (UTC)

Hallo, unter der Vorraussetzung, dass Du die Fotos selbst gschossen hast - wovon ich ausgehe - sieht das gut aus. Liebe Grüße --JuTa 15:41, 11 May 2013 (UTC)