More information is available at the community portal. You may ask questions at the help desk, village pump or on IRC channel #wikimedia-commons (direct access). You can also contact an administrator (find an active one) on their talk page. If you have a specific copyright question, ask at Commons:Village pump/Copyright.
|(P.S. Would you like to provide feedback on this message?)|
|Critically evaluate Flickr licenses||File:Michelle Pfeiffer nov 2007.jpg has been marked as a copyright violation. You may have preserved the information shown on Flickr correctly when transferring the image here, but the Flickr uploader is not the copyright holder of this image. Either the image was created by someone else, or it is a derivative of someone else's work. As stated in Commons:Licensing, only the copyright holder may issue a license, so the one shown on Flickr is invalid.
Always remember to critically evaluate Flickr licenses. Photostreams with professional-looking photographs, album covers, posters, and images in a wide range of styles or quality taken by many different cameras often indicate that the Flickr uploader either does not understand or does not care about copyright matters. See Commons:Questionable Flickr images for a list of known bad Flickr users.
You never had a welcome on your page, I cant start a page without it ;) The images by Indio are not his works, many times his images are now deleted from Commons. --Martin H. (talk) 02:58, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
The image that I uploaded does have a different license listed on Flickr, but through e-mail collaboration with the author, she gave me her permission to upload the image under the free license listed on the image's page. However, she did not release all of her images so the image that you uploaded does not comply with Wikimedia Commons guidelines so I would definitely put File:James Cameron star ceremony.jpg up for speedy deletion. For any of the images that are already uploaded here of James Cameron, you are able to edit them as long as you comply with the requirements of the license it is uploaded under. If you take a look at my image permissions page, I had to ask for the authors to release the images under a compatible license with Wikimedia Commons (some were already available under one of allowable licenses at Flickr to begin with and did not require asking for permission). If you need any further clarification, please let me know. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 21:48, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
It looks to me that the person who uploaded the images is the author of the image. If you look at the uploader's contributions, it appears to me that he uploaded the first image using his actual name as the author, and then when he uploaded the second one (he possibly thought the first one didn't upload correctly or it was a mistake) he used his user name instead. I'm guessing that the uploading user is the person on the right side of the image. I would recommend putting up one of the images for deletion since we don't need two copies. For the image that is kept, I would change the author field to say both Mr.Bud and Karl-Martin Pold. Let me know if you need further clarification. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 02:16, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
Can you please stop reverting my changes as I am in contact with the authors of the photographs, and am arranging OTRS confirmation for them, as I have done on previous images. Cheers, russavia (talk) 12:25, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
- This is necessary because they are a commercial agency, and anyone can create a username indicating they are the agency. I have already been in contact with them in relation to another image, and the COM:OTRS process now needs to be completed for these images. That way it can not be disputed in future that they are the copyright holder. Thanks for your understanding. russavia (talk) 12:32, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
Dank je voor je hulp bij het sorteren van de monumentenfoto's! Ik heb zojuist de gemeentelijke monumentenlijst van Asten toegevoegd op Wikipedia, en zag dat jij deze foto had aangemerkt als een gemeentelijk monument. Ik kan alleen het adres niet terugvinden op de lijst. Kun je misschien verduidelijken waarom je dacht dat het een gemeentelijk monument was? Effeietsanders (talk) 16:24, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
- Hm, nevermind, er blijken twee Heusdens te zijn in Noord-Brabant... Effeietsanders (talk) 16:31, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
TUSC token 376e002c2fd4a41e69d5fc9caa4c89f2
I am now proud owner of a TUSC account!