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.
- 1 File:Michelle Pfeiffer nov 2007.jpg
- 2 Licenses
- 3 Bud Spencer
- 4 Reverting
- 5 gemeentelijk monument
- 6 watermark removed
- 7 TUSC token 376e002c2fd4a41e69d5fc9caa4c89f2
- 8 File:James Caan Guillaume Canet Cannes 2013 cropped.jpg
- 9 File:Dutch candy called Schuimpjes.jpg
- 10 Round 2 of Picture of the Year 2015 is open!
|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!
Indeed, it was a mistake. What I did was correcting the source file, as well as adding the Category:Images by Georges Biard and the personality rights warning, int:license-header and RetouchedPicture templates. However, I made a small mistake with the RetouchedPicture template, which I cut and pasted from another page, since I forgot to replace my user name with yours. Don't worry, I never had the intention to claim your work as mine. I actually don't see the point in claiming to have cropped a photo (even though I uploaded the original file). cheers, JJ Georges (talk) 15:44, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
- I don't see that point either, so you don't need to mention my name at all. Just don't mention someone else either. LeeGer (talk) 11:00, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
- The only point in doing that was to include the template, which in turns includes the photo in Category:Retouched pictures. I thought that adding such a template was required for retouched photos. If it's not, no problem. It's just a way of specifying the photo of origin. JJ Georges (talk) 21:25, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
|File:Dutch candy called Schuimpjes.jpg has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.
If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue.
Round 2 of Picture of the Year 2015 is open!
You are receiving this message because you voted in R1 of the 2015 Picture of the Year contest.
Wikimedia Commons is happy to announce that the second round of the 2015 Picture of the Year competition is now open. This year will be the tenth edition of the annual Wikimedia Commons photo competition, which recognizes exceptional contributions by users on Wikimedia Commons. Wikimedia users are invited to vote for their favorite images featured on Commons during the last year (2015) to produce a single Picture of the Year.
Hundreds of images that have been rated Featured Pictures by the international Wikimedia Commons community in the past year were entered in this competition. These images include professional animal and plant shots, breathtaking panoramas and skylines, restorations of historical images, photographs portraying the world's best architecture, impressive human portraits, and so much more.
There are two total rounds of voting. In the first round, you voted for as many images as you liked. In Round 1, there were 1322 candidate images. There are 56 finalists in Round 2, comprised of the top 30 overall as well as the top #1 and #2 from each sub-category. In the final round, you may vote for just one or maximal three image to become the Picture of the Year.
Round 2 will end on 28 May 2016, 23:59:59 UTC.
-- Wikimedia Commons Picture of the Year committee 09:44, 22 May 2016 (UTC)