User talk:King of Hearts

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Old talk can be found at /Archive.
Welcome to the Commons, King of Hearts!
Afrikaans | Alemannisch | العربية | অসমীয়া | asturianu | azərbaycanca | تۆرکجه | беларуская | беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | български | भोजपुरी | Bahasa Banjar | বাংলা | català | нохчийн | čeština | Cymraeg | 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 | Interlingue | íslenska | italiano | 日本語 | ქართული | 한국어 | Kurdî | Latina | lietuvių | македонски | മലയാളം | मराठी | Bahasa Melayu | Mirandés | မြန်မာဘာသာ | Plattdüütsch | नेपाली | Nederlands | norsk | occitan | Ирон | polski | português | português do Brasil | rumantsch | română | русский | sicilianu | Scots | سنڌي | ၽႃႇသႃႇတႆး  | සිංහල | slovenčina | slovenščina | shqip | српски / srpski | Basa Sunda | svenska | Kiswahili | தமிழ் | тоҷикӣ | ไทย | Tagalog | Türkçe | українська | اردو | vèneto | Tiếng Việt | 粵語 | 中文 | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | 中文(台灣)‎ | +/−
Crystal Clear app korganizer.png First steps tutorial

Our first steps help file and our FAQ 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. You don't need technical skills in order to contribute here. Be bold contributing here and assume good faith for the intentions of others. This is a wiki - it is really easy.

Icon apps query.svg 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. You can also contact an administrator on their talk page. If you have a specific copyright question, ask at Commons talk:Licensing.

Transmission icon.png Goodies, tips and tricks
  • Put Babel boxes on your user page so others know what languages you can speak and indicate your Graphics abilities.
  • All your uploads are stored in your personal Gallery
  • Please sign your name on Talk pages by typing ~~~~
  • Use the CommonSense tool to find good categories for your files (then other people can find them too!)
  • To link to an image page, write this: [[:Image:Foo.jpg]], it makes this: Image:Foo.jpg
  • If you're copying files from another project, be sure to use the CommonsHelper
Nuvola filesystems trashcan full.png Made a mistake?
  • Did you want to rename or move a file? Simply upload the file again and mark the old one like this: {{bad name|Correct name}}
  • For more information read the full Deletion guidelines
(P.S. Would you like to provide feedback on this message?)

Siebrand 21:27, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Thoughts on taking pictures of city buildings in close quarters[edit]

Hi KoH,

A question for you, both as someone who knows NYC and who's quite a knowledgeable architectural photographer.

Among WikiProject NYC members (and Wikimedia NYC members) there's been a lot of talk lately about taking pictures of buildings in the city. Invariably the subject of how to get a decent shot from across the street comes up, and I wonder what your thoughts are. Obviously, the taller (or wider) the building the more compromises you'd need to make regarding perspective and distortion, and wide angle lenses are probably preferred, but do you have any tips? You can respond here and I'll copy your response, or you could leave the message at en:Wikipedia talk:WikiProject New York City. It's also come up just now on our WMNYC Discord server, so a good a time as any to invite you to join. :) Thanks. — Rhododendrites talk |  19:22, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

What's the difference?[edit]

You replaced my copyvio template with another copyvio template in File:Eckhard Nagel (2021).jpg, I fail to see the relevant difference. Why was this replacement necessary? What subtleties of of anglophone legalese did I fail to see? In the exif it's clearly stated that it's a non-free pic by a certain author, that's probably not the uploader. That's a copyvio, why was my template wrong? Grüße vom Sänger ♫ (talk) 13:12, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

{{Copyvio}} is for unsalvageable copyvios that have almost no chance of being kept. Since you failed to provide evidence of it existing elsewhere on the Internet, it is possible that the uploader was provided the file privately by the creator. In such cases there is a much higher chance the status can be cleared via COM:OTRS. -- King of ♥ 17:40, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
More precisely, the difference is in the talk page message given to the uploader. {{Copyvionote}} just tells them it's a copyvio without giving them instructions to correct the issue. {{Image permission}} has helpful advice on what to do if they do have permission from the copyright holder. -- King of ♥ 17:48, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
Template:Copyvio is the first choice anybody would use for such blatant copyvios like the one in Eckhard Nagel (2021). If I go to the templates page, nothing tells me anything about any restrictions in use, it's imho the one-size-fits-all, 08/15 template for all and any copyvios. At least that's how any not so heavy invested editor her would read it. There is no hint about any other templates, nothing. Grüße vom Sänger ♫ (talk) 08:38, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
It's a judgment call. In this case, the high resolution and full EXIF make it more likely that the uploader was provided the file privately by the author, especially as I cannot find any copies of it at this resolution online. -- King of ♥ 08:42, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
Yes, but still: Template:Copyvio ist the norm for all kinds of copyvio, not just for unsalvageable copyvios, at least that's what it's name and description says. Therefor the 1=Reason given is mandatory for explanations of that special case. An author by name and a explicitly restricted usability in the EXIF shows, that it's probably something for use on the homepage or some leaflet or such, but where the author still keeps the copyright, so imho it's even something of those obviously unsalvageable copyvios. Grüße vom Sänger ♫ (talk) 08:49, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
Technically speaking, a salvageable copyvio is not a copyvio at all; to call it a copyvio would be assuming bad faith. Instead, it is a potentially free file which we haven't yet received proper documentation for. -- King of ♥ 08:56, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
Then perhaps some admins or such should update the description of the template, as per name it's the one-size-fits-all for each and any copyvio. If it's only for a few select cases, there should be a prominent warning on top of the templates page, with all alternatives with strange and more illegible names for it in there (including description of those use-cases for normal, i.e. non-english speaking, users. And something with such an obvious EXIF is a straightforward copyvio case, nothing possibly fishy about it, no it's clear and nearly unambiguous. Grüße vom Sänger ♫ (talk) 09:21, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
Again, you are simply not correct. A non-matching EXIF author is not considered a blatant copyvio unless there are aggravating factors such as the EXIF author is a famous person or organization like AP/Getty, or a history of copyvios / lots of images with mismatched EXIF from the same uploader. In all other cases, fishy metadata only makes for a suspected copyvio, good for DR but not speedy. -- King of ♥ 09:27, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
Ich sag's mal auf Deutsch, da kenn' ich mich besser aus, und versuche eine Übersetzung hinterher:
Diese spezielle EXIF ist ein eindeutiger Nachweis einer illegalen Urheberrechtsberühmung, ein Bezahlschreiberling nimmt sich ein fremdes Foto und lädt es einfach hoch, weil es gut aussieht. Ich wüsste nicht, was es da groß zu diskutieren gäbe, zumindest sollten solche Sachen bei Bezahlschreiberlingen nicht mit AGF behandelt werden.
This special EXIF is an unambiguous proof of an illegal (Copyfraud?), a paid marketing texter takes a picture of someone else and simply uploads it, because it looks good. I can't see, what's there to discuss, at least there is no room for AGF for those paid marketing texters. Grüße vom Sänger ♫ (talk) 10:01, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
Again, if they are a paid marketer, then it can only make it more likely that they are using the photo in an authorized manner, something which can only be discovered by giving them an OTRS option. -- King of ♥ 16:04, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
Anyways, {{Copyvio}} is very much not for cases where the uploader indicates that a different person took the photo or if it is unclear whether the uploader is the same person as the named author; {{No permission since}} was tailor-made for this scenario. {{Copyvio}} is generally only for when you have hard evidence of a copyvio. -- King of ♥ 08:48, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
As I said: Those EXIF is a hard evidence of a URV, what else do you need? Grüße vom Sänger ♫ (talk) 08:50, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
No it's not, EXIF can be falsified, deleted, etc. It would be very impolite to a new user if they signed up for Commons under a pseudonym and kept their real name in the EXIF, only to see their photos deleted immediately. EXIF should not be the sole basis for speedy deletion except in obvious cases like AP, Getty, etc. -- King of ♥ 08:56, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
The "new user" is a Paid Editor, no impoliteness possible, anything but a block is polite in the first. The EXIF is clear: Copyright status Copyrighted, Copyright holder andre zelck, essen - landau, nothing ambiguous. I can't imagine anything much more straightforward but such cases. Grüße vom Sänger ♫ (talk) 09:01, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
Commons has no policy against paid editing; in fact, the community has voted to explicitly override the WMF's default policy (which project communities are allowed to do) and replace it with no policy at all. If they want to contribute a photo of a notable individual, what's wrong with that? "Copyrighted" does not mean "not freely licensed". (By the way, my "new user" example was not meant to refer to this case, but rather a hypothetical example.) -- King of ♥ 09:07, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
Yes, I understood that with "new user" being more general, but there a huge difference between "new users" and "new users". Professionals like paid editors get money for their work, so they have to be informed about us as first, the a precondition we can assume, not knowing anything is no valid excuse for professionals like PE. They should especially know everything about the Urheberrecht, that's what they got their money for. Real new users on the other hand should be dealt with spades of AGF. Grüße vom Sänger ♫ (talk) 09:25, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

@Sänger: Take a look at the history of File:JoeTalbotFilmmaker2020.jpg. This is precisely why we use {{No permission since}} instead of speedy deleting on sight, whenever we see an image tagged with a different author than the uploader. It doesn't work all the time and a majority still end up getting deleted, but if it makes the experience more pleasant for the 10-20% of uploaders who follow up, it's worth it to me to wait the extra week. -- King of ♥ 05:28, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

All those are copyvios, with different degrees of it. Why is there such a plethora of illegible templates, instead of one, where different reasons could be given? At least the one with the name if just Copyvio should be one for all cases, not just the blatant ones. Remember: This is an international venue, good knowledge of English should never ever be required for the use of the most obvious templates. Copyvio is probably known to most non-english editors, so this is the first template you will come to, and then use, if nothing else is provided in that templates page. Grüße vom Sänger ♫ (talk) 07:22, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
Instructions are given in German here: Commons:Deletion policy/de. It tells you when to use each template. -- King of ♥ 02:03, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Ariade Lee.jpg[edit]

Hi - you removed the {{copyvio}} template with only this comment: Old image, needs discussion. I've added further evidence that this is a copyright violation, can you please elaborate a specific rationale in the discussion why this is not a copyright violation. Regards,--Goldsztajn (talk) 23:18, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

{{Copyvio}} is only for obvious copyright violations. I am not saying that it isn't a copyright violation, only that it isn't an obvious one that we can delete without discussion. So by opening a DR we give people who may be more well-versed in copyright law than us the opportunity to present arguments as to why it is PD. -- King of ♥ 23:42, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
It's sourced to a notoriously unreliable site that engages in endemic copyright violations, the EXIF data appears to have been scrubbed, the image is directly attributable to a renown Life photographer and there are copyright claims in place. I suspect our notions of obvious differ. :) Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 07:08, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
US photos from 1940 have a significant chance of falling under {{PD-US-no notice}} or {{PD-US-not renewed}}. Even with big organizations like LIFE there is a chance of works slipping through the cracks, like w:It's a Wonderful Life. In a regular DR, the burden of proof is on those wishing to retain an image. For speedy, the burden is on those wishing to delete it. -- King of ♥ 15:43, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
A burden of proof is not permanent in the face of evidence; providing a link to the source of the image with copyright status shifts the burden of proof. At the very least a justification beyond "old picture" is necessary given the status of the origin of the photo; ie, it's more than reasonable to assume, given the digitalisation of the Life archive, (a) that copyright was renewed or (b) as it appears the image was not published, then copyright is held for 70 years after the death of the author. Either way, I don't see this as the same class of a one-off movie poster that is not part of a commercial archive. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 23:35, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
The fact that you don't even know whether the copyright was renewed or whether the image was published at all, is precisely why a discussion is necessary. -- King of ♥ 23:47, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
The point is not a lack of knowledge, the point is that whichever way one tries to argue (published at the time/not published until the digitalisation of the archive), there's no reasonable grounds to assume the image is not copyright given the nature of the Life Magazine archive and its creation. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 06:12, 25 July 2021 (UTC)
Yes there is: published at the time without copyright notice, or published at the time and not renewed. -- King of ♥ 22:07, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

Watermark laundering[edit]

Hi! You forgot to delete the first file in this discussion. Also, the user keeps doing the same thing as you can see. I think you can just speedy delete them, and even block the user because he/she is here only for these kind of activities. Regards.--Nanahuatl (talk) 07:23, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

Yes, I gave them a final warning but they haven't made any infractions since July 25. -- King of ♥ 21:45, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

"Contested by Admins"[edit]

I would point out that I do not see policy or guidelines on FBMD at the discussion you linked. The situation they are discussing is not pertinent to the image which started our discussion. I see one newer admin, one older admin and a user discussing something. That's not policy. That's not a hot discussion. Please feel free to start one, but what you give as a reason is very thin and not "hot." I truly doubt you would get a consensus that we should Deletion Nomination every FBMD we speedy. That sort of thinking can gum up the works to where we'd never get copyright violations out of here. Cheers! Ellin Beltz (talk) 02:47, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

You are assuming that it is policy to delete FBMD images on sight. It is not. Rather, there is no policy either way; COM:CSD was written before Facebook started tagging photos with FBMD. CSD says nothing about FBMD, so each admin is unfortunately left to interpret it their own way. -- King of ♥ 02:52, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
Also, we don't need to DR everything. {{No permission since}} works just as well as {{Copyvio}}, with the only difference that it is delayed one week. -- King of ♥ 02:53, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
I am wondering why you feel the need to explain the system at Commons to me? I told you there was no policy and that the "hot discussion" over there was not hot, nor changes the guidelines. Facebook copyrights every image uploaded to it. Please read their terms of service. I am aware of "no permission," "no license," and "no source". An image with FBMD, has a source, therefore they do not get sent to no source, if they have FBMD they are sourced to Facebook. However, I am not going to send every obvious FBMD to Deletion Nomination, especially for an uploader with obvious problems stating "own work" and things coming from social media or the internet. COM:PRP and all that. Any chance you could work through the backlog from last year instead of fussing about tags? Cheers!  !!!
I admit that in this case, I may have erred on the side of caution a bit too much, given the uploader's history. However, "Facebook copyrights every image uploaded to it." -> not true at all. Copyright remains with the Facebook user, who may be the Commons uploader or in contact with them. There is a difference between FBMD and an actual FB link: in the latter case we can see the identity of the FB user who posted the photo and make heuristic judgments about how likely they are to either be the same person as the Commons uploader or have authorized them to upload the image. With only FBMD we have nothing to go off of, so it helps to tread lightly. -- King of ♥ 03:10, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

Are Mexican logos copyrighted?[edit]

Are Mexican logos copyrighted? ItsJustdancefan (talk) 03:15, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

In every country, logos are almost always trademarked, but are only copyrighted if they are sufficiently complex. That threshold for complexity is known as the threshold of originality. Unfortunately we don't have a section on Mexico, but you can look at the US section to get an approximate feel for when logos are too simple to be copyrighted. -- King of ♥ 03:22, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

Revision deletion[edit]

Dear King of Hearts,

Please delete the revision uploaded by this user. These are the revisions:

After downloaded the files, the user uploaded the files again and again. So, revision deletion will be the best treatment for the actions.

Yours sincerely,
Anonymous user —Preceding unsigned comment was added by 114.125.249.152 (talk) 15:04, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion[edit]

Lang Ranch Oakbrook North Ranch Thousand Oaks July 2021 005.jpg
Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Lang Ranch Oakbrook North Ranch Thousand Oaks July 2021 005.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.

Comments

Symbol support vote.svg Support Good quality. --XRay 04:03, 1 August 2021 (UTC)
Lang Ranch Oakbrook North Ranch Thousand Oaks July 2021 006.jpg
Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Lang Ranch Oakbrook North Ranch Thousand Oaks July 2021 006.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.

Comments

Symbol support vote.svg Support Good quality. --XRay 04:03, 1 August 2021 (UTC)
Lang Ranch Oakbrook North Ranch Thousand Oaks July 2021 007.jpg
Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Lang Ranch Oakbrook North Ranch Thousand Oaks July 2021 007.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.

Comments

Symbol support vote.svg Support Good quality. --Knopik-som 03:51, 1 August 2021 (UTC)
Lang Ranch Oakbrook North Ranch Thousand Oaks July 2021 008.jpg
Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Lang Ranch Oakbrook North Ranch Thousand Oaks July 2021 008.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.

Comments
Symbol support vote.svg Support Good quality.--Agnes Monkelbaan 04:21, 1 August 2021 (UTC)
Lang Ranch Oakbrook North Ranch Thousand Oaks July 2021 HDR.jpg
Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Lang Ranch Oakbrook North Ranch Thousand Oaks July 2021 HDR.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.

Comments

Symbol support vote.svg Support Good quality. --Steindy 20:22, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:29, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion[edit]

Lang Ranch Oakbrook North Ranch Thousand Oaks July 2021 001.jpg
Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Lang Ranch Oakbrook North Ranch Thousand Oaks July 2021 001.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.

Comments
Good quality --Michielverbeek 06:24, 1 August 2021 (UTC)
Lang Ranch Oakbrook North Ranch Thousand Oaks July 2021 004.jpg
Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Lang Ranch Oakbrook North Ranch Thousand Oaks July 2021 004.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.

Comments

Symbol support vote.svg Support Good quality. --Tournasol7 06:45, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:25, 4 August 2021 (UTC)