User talk:Marchjuly

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

purge cache

Notice
Welcome to the user talk page of Marchjuly.
  • Please click here to start a new message at the bottom of this page.
  • Messages posted here will be replied to here unless requested otherwise.
  • Messages left on your talk page or a file's talk page will be replied to there unless requested otherwise.
  • I am not an administrator. I may tag/nominate files for deletion, etc., but I cannot delete them myself. Conversely, I cannot un-delete something that has been deleted. Please consult the administrator who deleted the file, or COM:DRV if you require such assistance. I am also not an OTRS volunteer, so please consult at COM:ON if you require such assistance.
  • Please sign and date your posts using four tildes (~~~~).
  • Please be patient if I don't immediately respond. Sometimes the real world gets in the way. For really urgent matters, you can also trying posting at my Wikipedia user talk page.
  • I'm happy to discuss any edits/comments I may have made, but please try to keep all comments civil. We are all volunteers and all make mistakes. There are really very things that I can screw up so badly that they cannot be undone if needed. Any mistakes I make are always made in good faith, and I will do my best to correct them as soon as possible. Personal attacks, etc., however, will not be tolerated at all and I will bring them to the attention of administrators at COM:AN without hesitation if necessary.
Server time:
August - 2016
25
Thursday
14:16 (UTC)

Welcome[edit]

Welcome to Wikimedia Commons, Marchjuly!

-- Wikimedia Commons Welcome (talk) 22:10, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Robert Lewy Diploma[edit]

Please take a quick look at the live link in talk Robert Ira Lewy as the last entry. It's to my college diploma showing My Phi Beta Kappa and Magna cum laude. Unfortunately it expires in 24 hours for security reasons!! Course I've saved it as a file and could email it. this system selected by the college itself . Thanks Robert Lewy Kingseason (talk) 18:11, 18 June 2015 (UTC) Kingseason (talk) 18:11, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Reporting copyright violations[edit]

Hi, For reporting copyright violations, please select the gadget in your preferences (AjaxQuickDelete and Quick Delete in the Maintenance tools section), and tag the file for {{copyvio}}. An admin will delete it soon after. IF you are not sure, tag it with a regular deletion ({{delete}}). Thank you for your help, Yann (talk) 07:50, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

No problem. I wasn't sure and posted at "COM:VPC" just to find out what others thought. Anyway, thanks for checking the files. - Marchjuly (talk) 08:12, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Abbey Road on the River Images[edit]

Thank you for letting me know the images may not be ok to use. I think they are, but I will verify it. Will it be suitable for verification purposes if I contact the festival via its "contact us" section in the website, send them a note with the images in question and then if I get a reply, forward it to Commons area? If not, how would you suggest I move? Again, thank you for your help! PhoenixGregg (talk) 19:00, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Hi PhoenixGregg. Please take a look at COM:OTRS for more details. I think you'll all find the information you need there. I am neither an OTRS volunteer nor an administrator, but you should be able to find one at Commons:OTRS/Noticeboard if you need a more specific information. Also, although the images have already been deleted, you can request that they be undeleted once OTRS verifies they are freely licensed per Commons:Undeletion requests so there's no need to reupload them. In fact, reuploading the images without fixing the problem will only likely lead them to eventually being deleted again, and may be seen as disruptive by an administrator. For reference, the administrator who deleted the images was Ellin Beltz, so you can ask them for more specifics. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:15, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Ivanova[edit]

Thank you for your feedback. I checked Google Maps/Earth policy and they only require proper attribution https://www.google.ca/permissions/geoguidelines/attr-guide.html So I edited the image and added their copyright info. It should be fine now. Thanks! I'm learning... UberNemo (talk) 06:34, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

@UberNemo: I think you need to be sure that Google does not place any limitations upon commercial use. Commons only accepts images which can be freely used by anyone, anytime for any purpose (including commercial use). The 4.0 license you've decided to use explicitly states the image may be "remix, transform, and build upon the material for any purpose, even commercially." This means I can download the image, put it on t-shirts, coffee mugs, mouse pads, and all other sorts of merchandise and make a profit of it without Google being able to do anything about. I'm not so sure Google licenses their images this way. On the link you sent me, it seems to say that such usage is expressly prohibited in the "uses in print" section. I suggest asking at Commons:Village pump/Copyright just to make sure because a quick scan of the archives of COM:DR show many Google Map/Earth images being deleted as copyright violations. -- Marchjuly (talk) 08:00, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
Hi again UberNemo. The file was retagged as a copyvio by LX and then subsequently deleted by Didym, so you need to discuss this with them if you still think the image was OK for Commons. Licensing can sometimes be tricky so it's easily to miss something, but files tend to be deleted whenever there's any doubt. -- Marchjuly (talk) 23:05, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
There is nothing at https://www.google.ca/permissions/geoguidelines/attr-guide.html that states the content is covered by any free license. The page is essentially about attribution requirements when using their content under fair use provisions, which don't apply to Commons. The official terms of use for Google Maps/Earth content is at http://www.google.com/intl/en/help/terms_maps.html. They are completely non-free. LX (talk, contribs) 23:25, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
Thank you LX for further clarifying things. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:15, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
Indeed. July noted. You'll forgive my presumption, it's a different thing entirely. --Begoon - talk 15:06, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

Seeking permission[edit]

Hello Marchjuly

Seeking permission as requested .....

I hope you will not delete the photos and the article as it's been difficult to date. I anticipate there will be a little delay, but I am hopeful the information your asking for is achievable.

Thank you for getting in touch much appreciated

Best Regards Charles Dobson 82.33.183.90 20:24, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Hi 82.33.183.90 (Charles Dobson). I'm not exactly sure which file you're referring to, but it sounds like one I may have tagged with a Template:No permission since. If that's the case, then please read COM:OTRS for further details on obtaining permission from the original copyright holder (if that's not you yourself). Generally, the photographer holds the copyright on any photos they have taken unless they have transferred the copyright to another party. Please understand that Commons only accepts freely licensed content and that it certain cases the explicit written consent of the copyright holder is sometime required for verification purposes. Commons does tend to delete files whose licensing is ambiguous or cannot be verified per Commons:Project scope/Precautionary principle, but any file which is deleted can be easily restored via Commons:Undeletion requests if the licensing is resolved at a later date. For reference, I am not an administrator so I cannot delete files myself, but the file is likely to be deleted by an administrator after a certain date if permission to upload it cannot be verified. -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:32, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Re: File:Qateel Shifai.jpg[edit]

Hello. No it was not the same image. The image I deleted was this one. I do not see any other reupload under the same name. Best regards, BrightRaven (talk) 11:47, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for checking. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:23, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

Peter Ewart files[edit]

Hi Marchjuly, The photo Peter Ewart Ed Pryor portrait.jpg that was deleted by Wikipedia editors is owned by Linda Ewart. She has published it on her own website for over 10 years. You may view it here http://peterewart.com/bio.php?ch=intro

The photo of the poster slated for deletion Peter Ewart CP poster Big Game.jpg is also on that website with permission from CP for use on informational publications such as her website and Wikipedia. See http://peterewart.com/ewart-corporate-artwork.php

Linda Ewart has asked me to update the information and images in this article.

Thank you for any guidance. I find the copyright/licensing information pages you directed me to very hard to decipher.

Jools — Preceding unsigned comment added by JoolsA (talk • contribs) 00:42, 08 August 2016 (UTC)

Hi JoolsA. Thank you for the message. English Wikipedia and Wikimedia Commons are both operated by the WMF, but they have some different rules when it comes to image files. Commons only accepts files which can be verified to be unequivocally freely licensed or in the public domain; Wikipedia, on the other hand, does allow certain copyrighted content to be uploaded as non-free content. So, sometimes something uploaded to Wikipedia is OK to be moved to Commons and sometimes it is not.
Lots of images are posted online by people, but that does not necessarily mean the individual who posted the posted or the website where the photo can be seen holds the copyright over the image. Generally, the copyright of a photo taken belongs to the photographer who took the photo, not the subject of the photo. However, if the photo was taken professionally and the right were then transferred to or purchased by Peter Ewart, then I believe those rights would transfer to his estate upon his death. So, if Linda Ewart took the photo herself, she is the copyright holder. She then has the ability to decide whether she wants to freely license the photo and upload it to Wikipedia Commons. Since she's been using it on her website for a number of years, all she needs to do is follow the instructions at COM:OTRS#Licensing images: when do I contact OTRS? She has basically two options: (1) She can email a "Declaration of Consent" to Commons OTRS at permissions-commons@wikimedia.org which explicitly says that she is the copyright holder and agrees to freely license the photo; or (2) She can post a Creative Common license compatible with Commons on her website for the photo which says that she agrees to freely license it as explained here. Please note that "freely licensed" means that anyone can download and re-use the photo in anyway (including commercially) without needing the permission of copyright holder. If Ms. Ewart is not the person who took the photo and is not the copyright holder, then she will need to get whomever that person is to agree to freely license the photo. She can do this by following the instructions in COM:OTRS#If you are NOT the copyright holder. Since you apparently are neither the copyright holder nor the photographer, you also need to follow the instructions in "If you are NOT the copyright holder".
As for the "Big Game" poster, if you look at en:File:Peter Ewart CP poster Big Game.jpg, you see that another editor Asclepias has added licensing which says the image is in the public domain. This basically means the image is not considered to be under copyright protection and can be freely used by anyone as they like. Because of this I have asked Taivo, the administrator who deleted the Commons version, to check the to see if the English Wikipedia licensing is also acceptable for Commons. If it is, Taivo will likely restore the deleted Commons' file and add the appropriate licensing.
Finally one last thing about Wikipedia. You wrote Linda Ewart has asked me to update the information and images in this article in your above post. If that's the case, then you likely have what Wikipedia refers to as a conflict of interest when it comes to the Peter Ewart article, so I suggest you take a look at Wikipedia's plain and simply conflict of interest guide for reference. COI editing is not something expressly prohibited by Wikipedia, but it is something highly discouraged and the Wikipedia community has placed certain restrictions on the types of edits COI editors can make. Wikipedia articles are not owned by anyone in particular, including the subjects they are written about or anyone closely connected (such as in this case a family member) to the subject of an article. Ms. Ewart has complete editorial control over what goes on her own website, but she has no final say at all as to what goes into the Wikipedia article written about her father. What this means is that she (or you on her behalf) may proposes changes be made (such as replacing/adding an image) on the article's talk page, but a consensus of editors may decide that such changes should not be made. So, you both should keep this in mind when it comes to editing/revising the content of the Wikipedia article. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:46, 8 August 2016 (UTC)