User talk:Martin H./Archive 10

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.


Archive Note

Maybe something left open in the archive. Please add proper sources to your uploads and only upload an image if you certainly know its copyright status. --Martin H. (talk) 20:40, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Template ru-mid

I see you deleted the template ru-mid Commons:Deletion_requests/Template:RU-MID. Do you think the pics could be uploaded under some other license? As stated in the deletion discussion, the copyright notice does allow some use. Offliner (talk) 23:12, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

I redirected it to Template:Speedy after the deletion request was closed as images from ru.mid are not free enough for Commons, see Commons:Project scope#required licensing terms. So images from that site are not ok on Commons. --Martin H. (talk) 23:20, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
Do you think it would be possible to upload these images to regular WP then? Thanks for answering. Offliner (talk) 00:51, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
Not as part of the Wikimedia projects free content because it is unfree, only if the image qualifies for fair use depending on the local projects policy, see meta:Non-free content. --Martin H. (talk) 00:55, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

My Image you deleted

actually, I'm almost positive that images from google products are free to use so long as they are not used for commercial purposes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mikewazhere (talk • contribs) 17:04, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Images on Commons - and content on all Wikimedia projects by the way except fair use on a small number of Wikipedia projects - must be free for every purpose including every possible and impossible commercial reuse. --Martin H. (talk) 17:05, 2 August 2009 (UTC)


Was it a coincidence that you marked this image as having a unknown copyright status, in the same minute, but before i marked this one as a deletion request? I ve seen all the others images uploaded by this user and in all of them he marks the author as anonimous or unknown, so i think that it can be almost certain that this images are copyvio. Tm (talk) 17:20, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

No coincidence, we both entered "googlemaps" into the search and both found this users contribs. After I deleted his Googlemaps images I of course checked all other images, the images appear to be not self-created or falsely claimed as own work, but the sourcing is too pore to evaluate the copyright status. Therefore deletion request. --Martin H. (talk) 17:24, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

I asked if was coincidence as i been working in organizing Category:Freguesias of Portugal. I saw this image of a town (Mondim de Basto) that happens to be near where i live, and saw the info present to be funky and smelly (at the minimum) and so pressed the delete button (should have pulled the speedy delete), so this whas really a one in a million coincidence, that you and i saw this in the same minute:). About the others images, if you translate the authorship info, written in portuguese, you will see that there are stated to be anonimous or unknow author wicht it can´t be true if the uploader as the copyright of this recent photos, so it can be almost beyond any doubt that this images are copyvio, and not self-made, of the uploader. Tm (talk) 17:37, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

That's really a coincidence :)) Yes, I understand the author statements and marked the images therefore as no source. For me - I'm sorry - its less work than searching the images on the Internet or opening a deletion discussion. The uploader can fix the source but unlikely this helps to keep the image because his source is most likely not published under a free license. --Martin H. (talk) 18:05, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

File Tagging File:TsuboEn_OkarikomiCloseUpWinterIMG_2426p25e.JPG

The images are mine hence the reference to the website. That too is mine. Hope this clarifies.Karesansui (talk) 19:22, 2 August 2009 (UTC) My name is stated on the copyright page and on the about page. Thanks, Piet

User page now updatet. Thank you. Karesansui (talk) 19:31, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Editing File:Novacom historique Googlemaps.jpg


I would like to know why have you deleted this image? This is not a screenshot of googlemaps, this is a screenshot from a commercial product using googlemaps inside of it and paying the licences to google for doing so. The screenshot has been authorized by the owner of the software and is here for information.

The same applies to the other Novacom platform software screenshots. Please, clarify your actions.



Hi Jordi, any content on Commons must be free for every purpose including modification and commercial use under the terms of a free license. Only the copyright holder can voluntarily provide such a licensing. Having a license (non-transferable and non sub-licensable) from Google does not give you the right to re-license their content under a free license. Your illustrations of technical equipment using Google maps are derivative works of Google maps, the screenshots are only a part of the photo/illustration but not small or unimportant enough to be de minimis. --Martin H. (talk) 20:46, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
By the way: I just noted, that you did much and good work in w:fr:Géolocalisation - however, Wikipedia is not a platform to advertise one proudct, see w:en:WP:SPAM#Advertisements masquerading as articles. Same applies for the french Wikipedia. --Martin H. (talk) 20:58, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Guillermo Zavaleta Rojas/Enrique Caballero Peraza

Guillermo Zavaleta Rojas

An email of the owner of the rights. I mean Guillermo Zavaleta Rojas, will be enough ? Please let me know. Thank you. --Henry Knight (talk) 02:31, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Enrique Caballero Peraza

This pictures is 100 % my own work, is funny because I took it with my camera and results that let me tell you.. I AM . Enrique Caballero Peraza. An email of my personal account will be ok ? Let me know. This is funny. --Henry Knight (talk) 02:33, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

I merged the two sections: In both cases an Email from the copyright owner is ok. It is suggested to follow the wording of Commons:Email templates (Commons:Modelos de mensajes#Declaración de permiso para todas las peticiones), everything important is included in this text. Using the spanish or english version is your choice. --Martin H. (talk) 02:42, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

I allready send the mails let me know what i should do. thank you for your time. Best regards

--Henry Knight (talk) 06:32, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Martin. I am sorry to bother you, I am waiting for the result of my email about this two pictures. Please let me know, i really do not want to see this work erased. Thank you for your time, and if i have to do something else, let me know. --Henry Knight (talk) 15:03, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

The Picture you deleted

File:Some-of-the-people-killed-001.jpg is public domain. The source is here. Should you read the picture caption, you will see the caption: "A selection of those killed or arrested - and in some cases still in detention - since the 12 June presidential election in Iran. Photograph: Public Domain". Please restore the picture--Behzad.Modares (talk) 12:57, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

They are public in sense of common property or the copyright owner will never find out, but not in terms of the copyright holder voluntarily placed the image into the public domain. The face collection program clearly says that the images were grabbed from various sources that are not public domain and maybe not even the right holders (, Tabriz news, Amnesty, Repoter without borders...). At least image number 16 is a photo of a photo, a derivative work, so the whole collection CAN'T even be public domain. --Martin H. (talk) 14:42, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Deleted file

Hi, Martin!

As my photograpy — one uniquely of my ownership — has been deleted, how can it be recharged on my userpages again? Can you realize this goal for me? If possible, please, email to me about this. Thank you so much. EgídioCamposDiz! 17:19, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Follow the instructions in the information on your talkpage, User talk:Egidiofc#File Tagging File:EgídioFoto-1.jpg. The source information is still visible in the log. --Martin H. (talk) 18:28, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
  • I don't believe it! All I want to know is "where is my yet charged file — that file (above mentioned), not other one"? In fact, the ethically correct procedure, once cleared the question, the ethically expected procedure is that which should imply the recharge made by the author of the deletion. Otherwise, Wikimedia will be a scenario of anarchy and disrespect. EgídioCamposDiz! 01:32, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Give me a good reason

Hi Martin H., please give me a good reason to delete my images?,--Inefable001 (talk) 19:19, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Permanently uploading images grabbed from other websites, wrong claims of authorship on other peoples photographs. See your talkpage for evidence. Next step will be Template:Copyviouploadindefblock/es. --Martin H. (talk) 19:26, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Copy violation tag : Vue flotte vehicules.png and others

Hi again Martin,

I've seen you tagged again the photos as copyrigth violations. Well, I made the necessary changes not to be considered as a copy violation for googlemaps or webraska. The portion not blurred are not big enough to be considered as a copy violation, as described by the "Copyright exceptions" as you can see here Copyrigth, also called "fair use" policy.

The data is nor exploitable or recognizable so I think your tag does not apply anymore. Moreover, this can be considered in my point of view as a de minimis, like you can see in the example of the Louvre photography under the chapter "An example under Civil Law".

I would like you to reconsider your tag. This kind of screenshots helps people understand the "geolocation" chapter. It would be a shame if we could not show this example to the public because this tiny misunderstanding.


Jordixmaster (talk)

I not remove my tags but I also not delete the images, someone wil give it a second view. You should simply use FREE content, like Open Street Map or for stallite images NASA content which is public domain. --Martin H. (talk) 20:50, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Aviones Fac

mira la licencia por favor Pagina donde se indica las condiciones de uso 6.Derechos de Autor: Todos los derechos de los contenidos y las fotografías publicadas en el sitio Web de la Fuerza Aérea son propiedad de esta institución, o están autorizados por sus autores o referenciadas las fuentes de las cuales se extrajeron. Su uso y/o publicación está autorizado, con la consecuente incorporación de la fuente y enlace a la página principal de la Fuerza Aérea. excuse me but i dont speak in english --Angel paez (talk) 10:32, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

For non-commercial puposes as stated in section 2. Please see Commons:Alcance del proyecto#Términos de licencia requeridos. The source is not free. --Martin H. (talk) 10:35, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
Also modification is not allowed. --Martin H. (talk) 10:36, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
la licencia dice que cualquier modificacion debe llevar referencia a sus autores y es lo mismo que expresa la pagina de la fuerza aerea colombiana ud la puede modificar siempre y cuando de los creditos ademas dice informativos, académicos, educacionales, de investigación o personales, que en ningun caso impliquen la utilización de los mismos para fines de lucro pienso que wikipedia califica aqui no es una enciclopedia.--Angel paez (talk) 10:38, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

I cant translate your last statement. But no question:

La información [...] no puede utilizarse con fines comerciales, prohibida la copia, modificación, distribución o reproducción de los datos, [...] imágenes o gráficos [...] sin el previo visto bueno del Comando de la Fuerza Aérea.

Sorry. --Martin H. (talk) 10:51, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

y la segunda parte leela yo pense que esto era un medio académico y educacional veo que no que wikipedia es una empresa con animo de lucro --Angel paez (talk) 11:06, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
See Commons:Sobre las licencias: Wikimedia Commons sólo acepta contenido libre, es decir, imágenes y otros ficheros que puedan ser usados por cualquiera en cualquier lugar.. La término de licencia "uso exclusivamente educativo o no comercial" no está permitido! See again Commons:Alcance del proyecto#Términos de licencia requeridos and the section Commons:Alcance del proyecto#Términos de licencia no permitidos. So end of discussion now, its obvious. --Martin H. (talk) 12:33, 4 August 2009 (UTC)


Hi Martin, You have questioned about the File:Kabir.jpg's licencing on its page. I can see the licence tag below it as {{GFDL}}, however if you feel that it is not a correct licence, kindly see the original source of file here and let us know on image's talk page that which lince should be applied ot it, as the source website doesn't hold any copyright.--Dsvyas (talk) 11:01, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Martin, Can you please reply and remove the tag from the file????--Dsvyas (talk) 08:59, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

That's Ok

Thanks for conserving these 5 files, there were 2 or three others that I had taken during a training of Le Mans's football club, but it doesn't matter. That's ok for me, i'll not reuse images of others people, you can be sure of that. And so, I'll try to make the best article of the city of Le Mans without using any false image. You know, I have taken some good pictures (and I'm quite proud of them!) and you can see them on my "good account", the "Le Mans" one. (For example this one: File:Rue Gambetta Le Mans.JPG, File:Siège du Crédit Mutuel Le Mans.jpg or File:Coeur du Tunnel du Mans.JPG Just one last thing, Do you think you can delete my account of "Trowa Barton" or not (on Wikipedia and on wikimedia both)? I would just keep my Le Mans's account only (understand that with this one, I've never made any "mistake" anywhere else, on Wikimedia or Wikipedia...). I'm sorry for these bad uplaods and for the jobs I've given to you. Good luck for everything and finally... thanks for your vision and your advises, it's better like that, not to cheat (A real article, without mistake I want to say... just pictures of the reality, not only so beautiful pictures that other people take and that you, you can't!). I'm sorry if this message seems too much "soft" and so "stupid" but that's the reality of what I feel. I'm very interested in this project and I'll follow you advices. I apologize if I've been agressive. See you soon. --Le Mans (talk) 12:03, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, you protested on some of the football images, but I can keep all images. One was cropped from, one other from
Accounts cant be deleted. Not here nor on Wikipedia. You can have the userpage deleted or the talkpage blanked, but not more.
Im quite unsure about your second account, You may find this offending, but im quite sure that not all uploads with that account are your own work. --Martin H. (talk) 12:41, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
It's as you wish, but for the pictures of my other account, you'll have to prove it seriously my friend, because all images of this account come from my own cameras. I let you do what you want but you'll lose you time. You'll see by yourself. But do it and at least you'll after that that I'm not totally "lost" for wikiprojects. But for the two images I was talking about, these were File:Samuel Bouhours.JPG and File:AbdouDieye.JPG. These one were old and were my own work with my old camera. If you can, just look at and you'll see that I'm just acting in good face this time. Just a question, I'm not obliged to indicate my own name on the "autor" to prove that I'm really the photographer? --Trowa Barton (talk) 17:00, 4 August 2009 (UTC)


Commons-emblem-issue.svg File:116278pv.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.
Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

Afrikaans | العربية | беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | български | বাংলা | català | čeština | dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | Zazaki | Ελληνικά | English | Esperanto | español | eesti | فارسی | suomi | français | galego | עברית | hrvatski | magyar | Հայերեն | Bahasa Indonesia | íslenska | italiano | 日本語 | 한국어 | 한국어 (조선) | македонски | മലയാളം | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | norsk nynorsk | norsk | occitan | polski | پښتو | português | português do Brasil | română | русский | sicilianu | slovenčina | slovenščina | shqip | српски / srpski | svenska | Türkçe | українська | Tiếng Việt | 中文 | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−

Teofilo (talk) 09:58, 5 August 2009 (UTC)


Commons-emblem-issue.svg File:116285pv.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.
Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

Afrikaans | العربية | беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | български | বাংলা | català | čeština | dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | Zazaki | Ελληνικά | English | Esperanto | español | eesti | فارسی | suomi | français | galego | עברית | hrvatski | magyar | Հայերեն | Bahasa Indonesia | íslenska | italiano | 日本語 | 한국어 | 한국어 (조선) | македонски | മലയാളം | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | norsk nynorsk | norsk | occitan | polski | پښتو | português | português do Brasil | română | русский | sicilianu | slovenčina | slovenščina | shqip | српски / srpski | svenska | Türkçe | українська | Tiếng Việt | 中文 | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−

Teofilo (talk) 10:03, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Dear Wikipedia

Dear Wikipedia:

thanks to the Martin H. (a very bad man) you have loose a free translater from Spanish-English into russian. I wanted to enreach your collection of articles but your user like Martin H., who got into his head that he is a God, has discouraged me from helping such a good web-site... Sorry

Dear user, if you join a project you should first read the very basic principles. I answered you on your email. --Martin H. (talk) 15:22, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

My Pictures

You recently clarified some stuff about my images that i have uploaded.

im sorry to say that many of my images violate the "no fair use" policy.

perhaps you should go through all of my recent uploads, and delete them, as it seems that i cannot do so myself.

im sorry for wasting your time --Tim1357 (talk) 14:36, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

No problem. The album covers are already deleted long time ago. Can you refer to filenames? Reviewing your uploads I see only File:Recaptcha logo.jpg (We can use it? We are not enough, everyone must be able to use it!) and File:Ibiza Wall Lizard.jpg (no permission from the author to a free license, no license selected) marked as problematic. --Martin H. (talk) 09:38, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

File:Venice Ghetto.JPG

Didn't you see the source? The source is the description: Karl Baedeker: l'Italie des Alpes à Naples. 2e éd. Leipzig: Baedeker 1905. Map of Venice, detail: Ghetto of Venice. So what? --Warburg (talk) 18:41, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Nein, in das Beschreibungsfeld habe ich wohl nicht genau geschaut. Ich habe nur die Quellenangabe gesehen. die keinen Autor der Karte nennt aber sagt, dass der Autor seit 70 Jahren tot sei. --Martin H. (talk) 19:23, 6 August 2009 (UTC)


I made the screenshot of that picture, so it's my own work! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Allan120791 (talk • contribs) 20:20, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

A commons mistake. I informed you on your talkpage. --Martin H. (talk) 11:13, 7 August 2009 (UTC)


Hi. As stated in the description page, I trasferred this file from, where uploader was the copyright holder.--Trixt (talk) 20:31, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

And I marked the image as missing source per the en.wp uploaders other uploads, I informed the uploader. Also im currently at the other uploads. --Martin H. (talk) 20:36, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

File:Naiyyum.JPG Deleted

The flickr image ( is created by me, and I uploaded it there to have CC, and ultimately upload it to wikipedia. "Either the image was created by someone else, or it is a derivative of someone else's work. " Could you please explain that? If I am the photographer, am I not the copyright holder? --Smcbuet (talk) 13:06, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Given the Flickr photostream I see a lot of photographs and this web size image. The image is also present at, so a permission from the bdsbmb would clearify the situation, permission should read like Commons:Email templates and send to Commons:OTRS. --Martin H. (talk) 13:10, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the tip. I did not know the photo was uploaded by bdsbmb beforehand. But are they the true copyright owner just because they uploaded it to the web first? And I can also bring the permission of the person whose photo graph it is to wikipedia. Will Dr. Choudhury's permission suffice?--Smcbuet (talk) 14:34, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
I assume you uploaded the image in good manner and belive that you are the photographer and copyright holder but following the page Commons:Permission also a copyright holder can be asked for confirmation if the image is published elsewhere under different copyrigth claims. Using an image somewhere does not give copyright, permission must come from the original owner - as you said yourself. Maybe you can explain how your work comes to bdsbmb website in you email, the email is handled confidentially by OTRS so you can give information I not ask you to write here on my talkpage where everyone can see them. --Martin H. (talk) 14:45, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Template:Speedy delete text

After the last (accidental) edit by a (new) user, wouldn't it be better to have this widely used template protected or at least semi-blocked ? --Denniss (talk) 13:36, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Guter Vorschlag, ich hatte mir nicht angeschaut welchen Zweck die Vorlage genau erfüllt sondern bin durch die Benutzerbeiträge darauf gestossen. In der Tat ist sie die Basis-Vorlage für die Speedydelete-Vorlagen, daher zu schützen. Vielen Dank, --Martin H. (talk) 13:42, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Is this right?

I've added some information, though I don't know whether it is what you want. Editing is not my speciality.


--SportingShooter06 (talk) 12:37, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

You changed the source and authorship to own work, thats correct if you are the photographer (author) and sole owner of all copyrights. Someone already doubt this and started a deletion discussion, see Commons:Deletion requests/File:Emerphoto.JPG. --Martin H. (talk) 15:12, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Escudo de Ciénaga de Oro

Can you help with File:Escudocienagadeoro.png and File:Escudocdeoro.png? The first one has an OTRS ticket. Which is the problem? --V.Riullop (talk) 16:43, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

I still strongly doubt that the uploader is the creator and therefore the copyright holder of this Logo, it might be the City who holds the copyright, but ok, I oversaw the OTRS ticket. Therefore removed the problem tag. --Martin H. (talk) 15:21, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
Maybe you are right, I can not be sure at all. It is hard to know when a coat of arms is an own work or a derivative one. From the OTRS ticket I can only trust the user who declares that he has made it himself with Adobe Illustrator. Perhaps it is a problem of many coat of arms. --V.Riullop (talk) 18:32, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
Yes, the creator or origin is often unclear, however it is no problems in countries where the copyright status of COAs was already clearified per discussion - thats regretably not the case for most latin american countries. --Martin H. (talk) 18:36, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Do you mind not deleting photos that were JUST uploaded?

Seriously, 1 minute ago? People need time to get the licensing information added at least, among other things. This is ridiculous. Cyborg Ninja (talk) 01:51, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

If you delete every one of my images that I JUST uploaded, excluding one which you tagged, then you really just wasted an hour of my life and I do not appreciate it. Cyborg Ninja (talk) 01:54, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
First: 20 minutes later, not one. Second: I gave you an info on your talkpage. Commons dont need scaled down versions. --Martin H. (talk) 01:54, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
I hope you'll stop assuming what a user is actually trying to accomplish before deleting all of their files. The images were cropped for excess height. If you want to correct the situation, then fix it. It was frustrating as hell to even upload the files - do you really have to piss off people even more here? Cyborg Ninja (talk) 02:02, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
I already did so. --Martin H. (talk) 02:06, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

It has taken a special amount of courtesy for me not to go any further with this. You did not restore the files. Instead, you edited my sandbox page, even though I explicitly told you I already knew about how to make thumbnails. Considering I have hundreds of edits over several years, what you did is condescending. You edited a private sandbox that was not linked anywhere else. I suggest you fix the situation and stop fooling around. Cyborg Ninja (talk) 04:43, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

And I will add again - the images do not have the same aspect ratio and they were cropped by me to be standardized. They were not even used in an actual article, but a private sandbox. I think that what your response here would look quite bad to Wikipedia's administration. Cyborg Ninja (talk) 04:47, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
hi Ninja, one day later I excuse for my quick action, however the deletion is justified as the images are scaled down duplicates - no need for downscaling as you can thumbnail images to every size and also external users can download every size of an image smaller than the original (20px 50px 78px original). If you really need images in a special ration or cropped on some sides you should upload them in best quality - not low quality thumbnail versions with 85px - and you should use the "derivative work of a file from Commons" in Commons:Upload. As same as Wikipedia is interested in good quality of text Commons is interested in quality of files. It seems like you created the 85px size especially for the thumbnail in this infobox, a 85px thumbnail is useless for e.g. an portrait in the persons article or other purposes because of the small size. My edit was intended to help you, I think that's the purpose of a collaborative project. As said above: You can upload modified versions, but please in a good quality. Maybe you like to create "File:Albert Einstein, 3-2 aspect ratio portrait.jpg" or something like this. --Martin H. (talk) 13:39, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
Then perhaps you'd like the picturebox to look like this: [1]. A dozen images of no uniform size? You apologize and yet did not correct the situation. Wikipedia is not interested in cracking down on 22kb images that are not used in actual articles! Oh and btw, I did use "derivative work of a file from a Wiki project. In fact, I used it for ALL of the files I uploaded. I have told you SEVERAL TIMES that I already know how to thumbnail an image. In fact, you could clearly see that on my sandbox page! It's right there, eight times, where I put "80px" to downscale the images further. Did that not register with you? Again, you gave me barely any time to correct any problems that arose: literally a few minutes before you deleted the files. I am shaking my head right now. You are standing on such weak ground right now. Cyborg Ninja (talk) 16:21, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
Of course I noted your 80px, and I really wondered why you created an 85px image to thumbnail it to 80px instead of simply creating a quality version and thumbnail it to 80px - means cropped versions of the required aspect ratio and a standardized portrait size in a useful, the best available, quality. Best quality for Wikipedia but Commons only serves the purpose and no one cares?? Or simply create something that is collected on Commons as "ethnic group collages". --Martin H. (talk) 16:33, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Hevert Arzneimittel

Hello, revising new pages I've found this page but google translate isn't working for me today. I suspect it is an off-topic page but I'm not sure. Since you speak German; can you please review it?. Thank you. Cordially, df|  10:42, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

It was promotional spam for a drug store - also out of scope as an article and not a gallery. --Martin H. (talk) 13:59, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
Thank you, however, Herbythyme deleted it few minutes after this message was posted. Sorry for the double work and best regards. df|  17:01, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Licencia de 3 fotografías


- José Arbiol Sanz -a la derecha- en una fotografía tomada en los años 50.JPG

- José Arbiol Sanz -2-.JPG

- Antonio Bielsa Alegre como proyeccionista de cine en una fotografía tomada en los años 60.jpg

Se hace constar que el autor de las mismas (de nombre Mariano Arbiol Bernad), todavía en activo aunque jubilado tras el cierre de su laboratorio Foto Calanda en los años 1980, acepta la licencia tras previa notificación de la misma. Para un contacto con el autor, enviar comunicado al correo de la hija:

--Sacha Delton (talk) 21:45, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Por favor envía un e-mail con una copia del permiso a OTRS ( --Martin H. (talk) 01:02, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

¿La copia del permiso debe ser un escrito de puño y letra del autor o la licencia fotográfica del mismo en sus años de fotógrafo? --Sacha Delton (talk) 00:13, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

I dont understand correctly. Mirar Commons:Modelos de mensajes para un ejemplo. --Martin H. (talk) 00:22, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

text removed* --Sacha Delton (talk) 21:07, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

*Please forward your permission to OTRS - not me. --Martin H. (talk) 21:19, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

SAT1932CU images

Hello Martin,

Thank you for making revisions and comments on my images. As you can probably tell I am new to this and I need all of the help that I can get! I have added categories to the images that you tagged. If you wouldn't mind checking those to be sure I did them correctly I would really appreciate it. You deleted my image FirstmarkCU 2008AnnualReport.pdf. I understand that I put it in the wrong location. Would you suggest my putting it in WikiSource?

Thanks again for your assistance! SAT1932CU (talk) 15:20, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

No, the correct place for a companies actual annual report is the section "Investor relations" on the companies website but not a Wikimedia free knowledge project. For Wikipedia this report is maybe an external reference.
Second I think the copyright on the report belongs to the company.I can guess that you are acting on behalf of that company but I'm not sure, a Commons:Permission for some of your uploads would be good.
Third I guess, that the images used inside this report, specially the images of oaks, are licensed from a stock photograph distributor. Licenses from image distributors are typically non-transferable, therefore the company is not able to publish their report in whole under {{cc-by-sa-3.0}}/{{GFDL}} (the selected licenses) as the report in whole is not free of third party copyright. Assumable the copyright holder of the photographs gave permission to reuse the images in the report, but he not gave permission to the mentioned licenses allowing unrestricted free reuse by everyone for every purpose including modification and commercial reuse. So the pdf is not only outside our scope but also questionable in permission and questionable in third party copyrights. --Martin H. (talk) 15:44, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

About Big Show and Chris Jericho's image

Ok, thanks for giving me the comment. I think I'm gonna erase your comment, but I agree your decision and I think you made a good job making that--Black jorge24 (talk) 02:31, 13 August 2009 (UTC)


Did you get it ? :) --Herby talk thyme 07:30, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Of course, and answered now. --Martin H. (talk) 11:21, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

for your attention and then transclude, thanks & regards --Herby talk thyme 12:22, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Did so, thanks for your trust. --Martin H. (talk) 12:55, 19 August 2009 (UTC)


Not my image, i just cleaned it up. rather indifferent to its deletion. thanks EraserGirl (talk) 00:43, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the note, I informed the original uploader. --Martin H. (talk) 00:45, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Not covered by PD-CzechGov

See Commons:Deletion requests/Photographs using Template:PD-CzechGov. Martin H. (talk) 18:12, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

User Diego quintana88

I have marked some images from this user as copyvio: User talk:Diego quintana88 (he uses to blank his discussion page). I really can not trust any of his uploads. As you have previosly dealt with some problems with his user, can you check all his uploads? --V.Riullop (talk) 15:35, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Very good work, I knew that this images are not his own images, I already bookmarked him. Now blocked, all uploads will be deleted. --Martin H. (talk) 15:41, 17 August 2009 (UTC)


Thanks for catching and fixing my goof at the VP! Lupo 08:40, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Gerne geschehen :) --Martin H. (talk) 08:41, 18 August 2009 (UTC)


I AM the author of this picture and I don't need à permission to publish it on the wiki. :-)))) - Best regards - Doumouchka (Design Madeleine)--Doumouchka (talk) 13:47, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Hi, I found that image in the category of uncategorized files and wondered about the watermarks, saw the different username, and so I marked it as no permission. Of course I should first review your other images to see photos like File:Djetcha Haltura Raschi Pack Buran.jpg :) I remove the tag, but do you have a little better quality for File:Djetcha Haltura Raschi Pack Buran tête b.jpg? It is small - which is not a problem - but the watermark is blurry and not readable. So can you provide a version of the same size (or a little bit larger) without the watermarks? Thanks, --Martin H. (talk) 13:51, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
Or a large version with watermarks of course like File:Djetcha Haltura Raschi Pack Buran.jpg. --Martin H. (talk) 13:52, 19 August 2009 (UTC)


Pues mira, tu subes muchas fotos de flickr y nadie te las borra, en cambio yo subo fotos de flickr y me las borras, lo unico que quiero es que me dejes en paz, no me molestes y yo no te molesto, no hagas caso a lo que yo edito y fin del problema. Ademas ya no quiero que bloquees mis cuentas, como quiera yo a seguir haciendo mas, si vas a hacer algo, nomas dime, pero ya no me bloquees.

Ademas porque borras imágenes del articulo de Elota, si son imágenes mías, como se nota que no tienes otra cosa que hacer amigo, o que, eres trabajador del proyecto Wikipedia???, si se subieron esas fotos fue para dar más realse a la pagina de Elota, además como te atreves a decir que la historia es una violación de copyright si la pagina de no existe, en que te basas para decir eso???, de plano, esto lo hago para que la misma población del municipio tenga a la mano información más accesible por internet, ya que los libros son muy escasos, esa fuente es basada de libros que tengo y de reportajes de periodicos, como la vez??.... espero y me respondas... — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk • contribs) 00:38, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, but this is to much for an automatic translation. I dont understand your question. User:Mike09 and sockpuppets is blocked for copyright violation, see Commons:Sobre las licencias. --Martin H. (talk) 00:49, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Image permission

Hello. I decided to write you because we had some contact about a month ago and I don't know who else to ask. I wrote for permission to a copyright holder but in the first letter I didn't include the declaration. I got this answer: "You can take as long as it doesn't say credit to a certain person who specially donated their photos." and immediately sent the declaration but for...2 days - no answer. I know I'm a bit impatient but what if I don't get any further responses? Can I post the only thing I got as a permission? Thank you. --SlipknotRlZZ (talk) 05:14, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

No. The copyright holder must agree to free reuse by everyone including commercial use and modification of the image. Everything else is considered a private permission for personal, non-commercial purposes. Remember that licensing an image under a free license cuts the economic interests of the copyright holder, so of course many people/company are not willings to license their work freely. --Martin H. (talk) 07:46, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
Thank you very much. I'll try not to give up although I'll probably have to call The Disney Company in California...--SlipknotRlZZ (talk) 08:19, 20 August 2009 (UTC)íkSvoboda_1968.jpg

See Commons:Deletion requests/Photographs using Template:PD-CzechGov. Martin H. (talk) 18:12, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Pictures of czech presidents etc.

See Commons:Deletion requests/Photographs using Template:PD-CzechGov. Martin H. (talk) 18:12, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Keine Google Bilder

Hallo Martin,

danke für deine engagierte Mitarbeit bei Wikipedia.

Du hast allerdings heute um 14.45Uhr zwei Bilder von mir gelöscht, mit dem Hinweis, diese wären von Google Maps.

Dem ist aber nicht so: Die Bilder stammen von der Seite und können nach Angabe von Wikipedia (da hatte ich den Link zur Seite her) problemlos verwendet werden.

Da stimmt was nicht. Ziel von Maps-For-Free ist es, freie Reliefkarten anzubieten, alle anderen Karten sind nicht frei. Unter einer freien Lizenz stehen, wenn du auf bist, die Ansicht "Relief" und OSM (Open Street Map), nicht aber die Ansichten Map, Satellite und Terrain da diese von Google eingebunden sind wie in beschrieben ist. Zudem unter einen freien Lizenz stehen die verschiedenen Layer die über das Drop-Down Menü angewählt werden können, mit Ausnahme des Labeling layers und des Contour layers. --Martin H. (talk) 15:55, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Re: File:@JSto.jpg

Hello. This information has been updated/added. Please contact me if you find further issue and i will clarify. --Redwing2 (talk) 07:05, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Answered on your talkpage. --Martin H. (talk) 10:17, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

No problem. I will amend and email in rights information for the stills as I have for some other images. FYI a highres still is different from a screenshot in that only someone with access and/or rights to the original footage could gain a still from the video, whereas anyone could grab a screenshot online but the res would match that of the youtube file or what have you. Both of these images you mention are higher resolution than the source video. Of course that shouldn't imply rights so I'll email information to editors. Just a little production file fun for you. --Redwing2 (talk) 05:39, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

File:Pneumocystis LifeCycle.gif

Hi, thank you for letting me know. Best regards, Filip em (talk) 10:58, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

It's OK you are right

It's OK you are right, When I posted these I didn't know how to label inages so I simply cpoy-paste from some other info. I didn't even look so I owed apology to you. Now I see where to write what. OK?--Santasa99 (talk) 20:45, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

I use only my own img's! I have tons of pics from that place and I uploded only rhose needed for some articles I write. As I said when I uploded images for the first time I didn't know what I was doing. I simply copy paste from some one else info without watching or knowing what I was doing. I realy don't need to justify my intentions twice , especially in this case -these pic are my own, and I am simply geting to know how to label them.--Santasa99 (talk) 21:01, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Well you should ask them, not me, right? Do you know who own these sites you presented? Where are the rest of the images from the same serial as Ocrkavlje or Neretva for that matter? You know that you can strip img's from any unnecessary data and meta data too, before upload, right? They could take pic's from my Upper Neretva exhibition of photographs that took place on several occasion and places in Bosnia; and these rafting organizers (private persons that don't register their businesses but they obviously have web sites) need images like these. And what ever, you should realy ask them for further info if I didn't provide enough on my own.--Santasa99 (talk) 22:06, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

I would appreciated a little bit more help in removing all my images from this site and deleting my account. It seem that I don't know how to do that, if that is possible at all - at least from my part. Thanks a lot.--Santasa99 (talk) 23:18, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

All images and photos are my own and take them down immediately!--Santasa99 (talk) 23:39, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Never underestimate the power of stupidity of a man on power--Santasa99 (talk) 00:50, 23 August 2009 (UTC) (should I introduced my self : Sulejman Badzak - Badzo, owner of Badzo-raft and photographer from Konjic, Bosnia - my dear Administrator - with capital A; who are "we" in part of your message that goes "...WE appreciate contributions...", you Admins and Jimbo ?! I mean, you are special breed while we commoner (read real contributor) are actualy not far from beening frauds and we should accustom to at one point stop being content generators and have to become content defenders.)

I read your posting and removed it from my talkpage. Sad to hear that you decided to leave Wikimedia projects, that leavs me allone with my belief that you have taken all this images from flickr, panoramio and various environment protection websites. Some bad taste left. --Martin H. (talk) 21:24, 23 August 2009 (UTC)


No! This file has ben photografeth my father in same moment, as other images of this a matters ! It is no copy of this file:

Please, take back deletion, or bring new arguments for deletion --Fredy.00 (talk) 06:42, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

I answered on your talkpage. --Martin H. (talk) 11:30, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Leon Uris and Percy Rodrigues

Please delete the images. I cannot obtain further info about the original source of them, just the claiming of the webmaster of

I apologize for the inconveniences. Regards --Cratón (talk) 22:21, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Thank You

Thank You. I thought that such operation executed bot? --Starscream (talk) 01:02, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I can instruct User:CommonsDelinker/command to replace, but it was the only use, so it goes faster to replace them manually with one edit instead 4 bot edits. --Martin H. (talk) 01:05, 24 August 2009 (UTC)


I want to say thank you that you cared about him and that he finaly understand it - I think after a review. See also User talk:Toufik-25 (1), User talk:Toufikdu25 (2). That was a long and difficult way. --Martin H. (talk) 01:03, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

O.o This guy is sometimes hopeless... but he seems to have finaly understood how work the Wikimedia projets...
Thanks for your correction too ;) Bye.--Bapti 02:44, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Licensing permission

Martin, i can't send any permissions for these images (File:Cicero_pompeu_de_toledo_-_aerial_-_01.jpg and File:Cicero_pompeu_de_toledo_-_aerial_-_02.jpg) 'cause i only uploaded for rename them. I only copied the informations of the old ones. can't you see who was the original uploader to ask him? i forgot to pass this information. sorry...

the only thing i know is that they are from this site, here for example, whose say in the bottom:

A utilização de qualquer foto deste site é permitida, desde que esta fonte seja citada. É expressamente proibido copiar, linkar, modificar e/ou utilizar de qualquer outra forma as fotos aqui contidas sem que esta fonte seja citada. You are free to use any picture from this site as long as this reference is cited.

the first part translated is:

The use of any photo is permmited as long as this reference is cited. Is not permmited to copy, link, modify, and/or use in any other way this photos if this referenrence was not cited.

With this, i think the photos can stay here.

thanks, tales.ebner 03:20, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Hi Martin. did you read this? thanks, tales.ebner 14:51, 25 August 2009 (UTC)


Sollte behoben sein. Lupo 15:03, 24 August 2009 (UTC)


Hallo. Siehe File:Sindelar memorial.jpg, die Kategorie ist mit Sicherheit ungut, aber ich fand nix anderes. Danke im Voraus, Grüße -jkb- (talk) 17:25, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Eine genaue Cat weiß ich gerade auch nicht, aber für den Anfang doch sicherlich ok. In betracht käme:
  • Das Haus/Die Straße;
  • Die Person
  • Gedächtnistafeln mit präziser Lokalisierung (Gedächtnistafeln in Wien/Gedächtnistafeln in Österreich)
  • History auf Austria Wien wenn relevant.
Und das natürlich in Englisch ;) Mehr fallen mir gerade nicht ein. --Martin H. (talk) 17:30, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Na, zumindest sieht es jetzt nicht so dämlich aus, so ist es doch konkreter. Danke, -jkb- (talk) 17:41, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

gerne geschehen. Wollte noch Category:Memorials in Vienna hinzufügen, das leitet aber auf etwas weiter was nicht so gut passt. Scheint durch den redirect aber gewünscht zu sein. --Martin H. (talk) 17:44, 24 August 2009 (UTC)


File:Demiii.jpg. Cheers, Tiptoety talk 17:48, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

whoops, thanks. Touched the Flickrreviw button ;) --Martin H. (talk) 17:51, 24 August 2009 (UTC)


...kann ich diese Bevormundung verstehen? Ich habe den Benutzer für ein Monat gesperrt. Ohne Absprache mit mir verkürzt du due Sperrzeit auf eine Woche --High Contrast (talk) 19:45, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Unsere Blocks haben sich überschnitten, ich war schneller, allerdings langsamer beim platzieren der Nachricht auf der Benutzerseite. Mit meinem zweiten Edit habe ich meine Zeit auf einen Monat erhöht und somit deine Sperre übernommen - hab allerdings nur die Kopfzeile und nicht den Text korrigiert. --Martin H. (talk) 19:49, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
Ich habs gerade bemerkt, dass wir parallel aktiv waren - sorry!!! Nimms mir nicht übel! --High Contrast (talk) 19:50, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
Wenn du es mir auch nicht übel nimmst, dass ich deinen Baustein gelöscht habe ;) Grüße, --Martin H. (talk) 19:51, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
Sei verziehen;-) --High Contrast (talk) 19:58, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Delete my pictures please

Please delete all my pictures.


Gaban (talk) 23:09, 24 August 2009 (UTC)


Du hast eine Nachricht auf huwiki. Gruß, Cassandro (talk) 23:58, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

File:Anastacia Heavy Rotation Tour.jpg

Mais essa imagem não violou nenhuma regra não, essa imagem foi tirada em um show ao vivo por uma pessoa comum e não por um fotografo! o que tem de errado nela?? --Aangel (talk) 03:38, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

More this image does not violate any rule, this image was taken in a live show by an ordinary person and not a photographer! what's wrong with it? --Aangel (talk) 03:39, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Answerd on your talkpage. --Martin H. (talk) 12:58, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Crazy Horse

Hallo Martin H.,

bitte teilen Sie mir mit, weshalb mein Foto vom Modell des Crazy Horse Memorial, die Datei CrazyHorseMonument1.jpg, das unweit des in Arbeit befindlichen Originals steht, gelöscht werden soll. Es handelt sich um mein eigenes Foto, niemand sonst hat daran Rechte. Ich hoffe, ich habe es unter der richtigen Lizenz freigegeben.

Gruß--Posi66 (talk) 09:15, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Antwort auf deiner Benutzer-Diskussion. --Martin H. (talk) 13:08, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Hallo Martin H.,

habe deine Nachricht zu meinem Bild CrazyHorseMonument1.jpg bekommen. O.k., habe ich nicht gewusst. Danke für den Hinweis und weiterhin viel Erfolg bei der Arbeit.

Viele Grüße --Posi66 (talk) 16:05, 25 August 2009 (UTC)


Hello Martin H.! You might be interested in knowing that User:Pedrocas8 has re-uploaded File:MUNDO PORTUGUES.JPG‎. Cheers. The Ogre (talk) 12:12, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Deleted. If you agree we can deleted the file talk as well. --Martin H. (talk) 13:02, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
By all means, let's delete it! Cheers. The Ogre (talk) 11:46, 27 August 2009 (UTC)


Hello Martin H.

I see that you have deleted a lot of my uploads.

All pictures I upload to Wiki Commons are all my own work. I have made these pictures my self and I use them on my website I am the owner of I have sent permission to Wiki:

Can you please put my picture's back on Wiki Commons? I am going to upload some more pictures later today. Please do not remove them! Thank you, Don

Permission should come from AJAX1 Communications to permission-commons, as they are the website owner and copyright claimant. --Martin H. (talk) 15:13, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
I give up!
You win!
Saves me a lot of work uploading all my pictures to Wiki Commons.
I will explain to you 1 more time. is my website, I am the owner. Please check at
Did you check? Yes? Who is the owner of Me isn't it?
The company 'Ajax1 Communications' is owned by one of my employees. He works for MY WEBSITE and as a return I have provided him with ads on MY WEBSITE.
If you or Wiki Commons still does not understand, FORGET IT. I am not spending anymore of my time about this!
Im interested in the repsonse to my question in their contact page. --Martin H. (talk) 17:11, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

User D0N63

Hi Martin! You received letters from D0N63? Laim (talk) 19:24, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Only an autoresponse from the company so far, they are not in office this week. --Martin H. (talk) 19:29, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the welcome

I'm glad to be noticed. I expect my contributions here will be mostly confined to OTRS-related tagging, but it's possible that will change. -- Pakaran (talk) 02:06, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

FOP in Russia

Is it right that this image cannot be kept here since there is no FOP in Russia?

The artist is also still alive. Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 06:36, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

There is no FOP in Russia according to COM:FOP, but are this stones artwork? --Martin H. (talk) 11:37, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Yes. I did not think of this. Its not a statue. Thank You, --Leoboudv (talk) 22:15, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment: I was placing a rename request but now I wonder if this image can be on Commons. I think it is in Russia or Kazakhstan and is a modern building:
  • File:P8250027.JPG

Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 01:05, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Source added

Source added to [7]. Hope everything ok. Regards Bott (talk) 01:51, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Hello Martin, i dont know what source of inspiration is, i am quite sure now even it w<s taken from the real Elvis it would colide with some policy of wikipedia....just wandering. We all know also that a painting is always inspired by external sources specially portraiture. Normally two or three.

If you have problems with this image put it to the community with your main concern. It´s a free image and i i dont see any problem with it. Regrads Bott (talk) 21:21, 27 August 2009 (UTC)


Hi Martin,

thank for asking. In fact I got an accreditation for this festival. Even if I didn't sign any contract, it's common that the artists management prohibits any use of the photos except for editorial use. I really would love to upload them to wikipedia (I consider this project as "editorial"), but I have doubts if Franz Ferdinands management would agree with this if anyone can use their picture. Therefore I think its better to delete my picture from the database (Franz Ferdinand Luxembourg.jpg) as long as there's no other license prohibiting any commercial use! :-( Deendo — Preceding unsigned comment added by Deendo (talk • contribs) 17:27, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

✓ Deleted Good picture too. :-( Rocket000 (talk) 19:01, 27 August 2009 (UTC)


Please forward a written permission from the copyright holder to OTRS. Copyright transfer works only in written form, permission to a free license should go in written form. The statemen "own work" is still wrong btw, you are not the photographer. --Martin H. (talk) 19:51, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
Author means the photographer. If unknown write unknown. It is totaly unimportant to own a photograph, e.g. I own a Picasso painting, do I own the copyright? Clearly not. I cant make a photograph or scan of the painting I own and sell the scan. It is more important that you own the copyright for some reason, copyright is inheritable e.g.
I take you by your word, you wrote used by permission of owner - if you mean owner of rights, you did not get a written permission during the owners lifetime, you dont know who heird the copyright and cant get this person(s) permission - then the image is lost as long as it is not public domain according to Commons:Licensing#Ordinary copyright. --Martin H. (talk) 20:30, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Again: I own the Ralph Izzard photo. The photographer is deceased. This was a photo taken as a family photo, not for publication or use in any commercial manner. It is also over 65 years old. Unless I'm mistaken this would place the image in the public domain according to accepted copyright law.

I read in a recent talk post on another photo to which you assigned the same deletion tag. In that case the user explained his situation exactly as mine and you granted him permission to retain the file on Wikimedia commons? What is the difference between his case and my own?

Additionally: As this information was provided in the initial upload, I fail to see the benefit to Wikimedia Commons of this particular editorial "initiative" which you are subjecting users.

I received permission from Sabrina Izzard to use the photograph in question. Ralph Izzard was her father. He is deceased and therefore she is the rightful heir to the photograph and it's copyright. She granted me permission via a letter in 2003 and in person when she gave me the photograph.

Etrangere (talk) 1:46, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Etrangere, with your initial upload you provided wrong authorship information, this is still not corrected. --Martin H. (talk) 21:17, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
Matin H., I understand. I'm unable to figure out how to change the authorship information. I'm a bit confused about it. --Etrangere (talk)
Klick on edit. You already found it, the page is much edited by you.

Hello Martin H., The photograph in question of Ralph Izzard was taken while he was in the British Naval Volunteer Reserves in 1943. Please see the following: (section) Crown copyrights For photographs taken before June 1, 1957, Crown copyright expires 50 years after the creation of the image. All such photographs are therefore in the public domain. --Etrangere (talk)

Crown Copyright is for photographs created by the government. You not even denoted a correct author, so the claim that the photographs was created by the government is not very promising. --Martin H. (talk) 21:28, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Please review the file again. Have I corrected the issue? If not - I'm completely confused: Can you tell me what it is, exactly that I need to do in order to clear up this situation?

Thank you.

Correct the information, the author is the photographer. Provide a written permission (suggestion) to OTRS, the permission should include a description of the way of copyright transfer to the person giving the permission. --Martin H. (talk) 21:42, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

The permission granted to me by the heir to the photo has been sent to the permissions email address you provided. I have indicated correctly the author and the type of permission. Etrangere (talk) 21:35, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Kazakhstan FOP issue

  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment: I was placing a rename request here but now I wonder if this image can be kept on Commons? I think it is in Kazakhstan and it is a modern building:
  • File:P8250027.JPG

Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 23:36, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

I wonder why you ask me ;) Realy, but this is too difficult to say without having any examples or expirience with this country or this kind of buildings. I dont know in this case. --Martin H. (talk) 23:38, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Krish8.jpg and krish_7.jpg

Dear Martin H.,

I have recently uploaded the image files that are the subject of this post (Krish8.jpg and krish_7.jpg). I have received your message that they may be deleted because they have "no source." However, I am confused, because both image files do in fact have an indicated source and author. I am the source and author, and I included what I thought to be the proper licensing tags {{PD-self}} when I uploaded the files. The photos are not copyrighted. They are in the public domain and I take full responsibilty for their distribution here on wikimedia.

Did I fill out the upload form wrong? If so, would you be so kind as to let me know what I've done wrong so that I can correct the situation.

Kind Regards,

Jescoromas -Jescoromas (talk) 02:20, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Krish photographs

Martin H.,

Thank you for letting me know that information. I am brand new to wikimedia and I did not realize you guys were so strict with regards to image uploading, especially in light of a user taking FULL RESPONSIBILTY for an upload. Forgive me.

You are right, I did not take the photos; I only put that down for simplicity's sake. But those photos are IN FACT in the public domain. They were taken by obscure, unknown monks in India at various points in time during the last century. The dates I put down were just approximations, because they have no known dates.

I downloaded these photos from, a website that The Divine Life Society maintains. The Divine Life Society is an ashram in Rishikesh, India. The institution's President, General Secretary and administrators are monastics (priests) and distribute their books and media freely, without concern for copyrights.

If you feel that it is necessary to contact The Divine Life Society in Rishikesh, India with regards to these photos, you can do so at their website

Otherwise, would be so kind as to let me know how I should procede to fill out the upload form? Should I fill in Divine Life Society for author AND source? Where does the licensing tag fit it?

Kind Regards,

Jescoromas, --Jescoromas (talk) 02:53, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Regarding the responsibility for uploads: that doesnt matter, as long as the images are not public domain for a reason or freely licensed by the copyright owner COM:PRP applies: The copyright owner is not known or he will not complain is not a valid argument to keep something on Commons. It would be a good idea to ask at least them for a written permission. Regarding the upload form: The author is the photographer or painter, provide as much information as known. The source is the source where the image comes from, the website in your case. If the source provides more information about the original source so write it down. --Martin H. (talk) 14:18, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Tank you! RmSilva pode falar! 15:44, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

How to upload (movie) poster?

Hello Mr. Martin. Please guiding me here. How to upload movie poster legally in wikipedia? It's Non-free media use rationale. Which link should I choose on upload file toolbox? I it "from somewhere"? Since the "fair-use" is unacceptable (what for that link for then?). Illuminate me Mr. Martin. Please let me know how to upload it step by step (including licensing, copyright, etc). Many thanks before.

Answered. NO fair use on Commons! --Martin H. (talk) 17:41, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Konstantin Kedrov’s “test pages”

…are no test pages, but misdirected responses to the messages about his uploads. He also leaves responses on the files’ talk pages sometimes. --AVRS (talk) 09:00, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

It was not possible to separate to which file the information belongs, the pages Template talk:Copyvionote/ru and Template talk:Image permission/ru are realy wired places to write something. Testpage was the only correct reason from the drop down menue, the correct reason is maybe "lost and orphaned information". Also the authorship information edited by him are all totaly wrong, e.g. File:Novie Izvestij poet K.Kedrov njminant Nobel Prais 2005.jpg - he is in the image, so he cant be the author and unlikely he is the copyright holder. --Martin H. (talk) 17:40, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

File:F5-operation karkok.jpg

Hi. First I must excuse You، because I cant speak English very well.

This picture that you wrong it، taked by military of iran. Because I found It in Official website of «Iran Iraq War» .

In down of each page of this site mention that all of these pictures are licensed under the (GFDL).

Gire 3pich2005 (talk) 10:10, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Answered on your talkpage. --Martin H. (talk) 17:35, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Hi. thanks for direct me. you are good friend.

can I upload a computer-aided design picture ?

hi,this is onlymyself65536
i have several files which is using computer-aided design with Adobe Photoshop CS4
like changing cloth's color 、remove some background
can I uploaded them ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Onlymyself65536 (talk • contribs) 13:53, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

only if the base image is also your own work or licensed freely by the copyright holder. If the original is not a freely licensed image your result will be also not ok for Commons because you can not provide a free license for the image without violating the original authors copyright. See COM:DW. --Martin H. (talk) 15:17, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

File:Cicero pompeu de toledo - aerial - 02.jpg‎

Hey Martin. The site's permission is on it's foot note. In portuguese and english. It says:

Português: A utilização de qualquer foto deste site é permitida, desde que esta fonte seja citada. É expressamente proibido copiar, linkar, modificar e/ou utilizar de qualquer outra forma as fotos aqui contidas sem que esta fonte seja citada.
English: The use of any photo of this site is allowed, since this source is cited. It is definitely prohibited copying, linking, to modifying and / or to use in anyone other way the photos here contained unless this source is cited.

I think there is no problem with this file. Mizunoryu 大熊猫❤小熊猫 (talk) 17:07, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

If you say so, ok. There are many deletion discussions about such permissions - many of them with a negative ending because finaly someone asked them and the answer was "no commercial use" or "no modification". See Commons:License tags which says:
Please discuss first on the Commons:Village Pump before you add tags for sites which proclaim their pictures to be 'copyright free', 'may be used freely', 'public domain', 'No copyright', 'For publication/media/press/journalistic/scientific/promotional purposes'. They are often either statements that fair use is permitted by law or they grant only a non-derivative license. Please see Commons:Village_pump_archive-28#Common_Misconception. Please follow the advice at Commons:Email templates#declaration of consent for all enquiries to request clear permission which also explicitly allows derivative works (since by principle of copyright, everything not allowed explicitly is forbidden by default). Please try to convince source web sites to use one of the boilerplate Creative Commons licenses.
Underlines added by me
At best we learn from mistakes of the past and follow this piece of experience. Why not simply ask the website, if they are the sole owner of copyrights of the photographs, if they allow for free reuse including commercial use and modification? --Martin H. (talk) 17:26, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

I understand what you mean. I watched some cases like that. And I myself have some doubts with such licenses. But in this case it's specifically told that any kind of use and re-use is allowed if the source is cited. So i fail to see any problem with that. Of course an e-mail would be great to clera any doubt and avoid conflict. But I think it's not necessary, not for this one. And I couldn't find any way to get in touch with the webmaster.

PS:CC licenses are great! There is no turning back, hahaha. Mizunoryu 大熊猫❤小熊猫 (talk) 18:54, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Problem with my graphics?

What is the problem with my grapihics? I acctualy had a talk with my polish admin and he didnt see any wrong in uploading of them nor I consulted uploading with another som said that all is good so I ask you what is the problem?--Staszewski (talk) 20:56, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

thank you, that solves the problem. --Martin H. (talk) 21:08, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Image Rgil.jpg

Dear Martin H: The file you erased is a familiar photo of my granfather included in a book edited by "Ayuntamiento de Madrid" and "comunidad de Madrid", and all the material contained in that book (photos obviously) is property of Gil Family. So ¿Why you erased a photo which rights belong to me and my family? You delete that photo unknowing the property of the rights. Please reload it. Best regards. César Gil.Cesargil (talk) 09:58, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Probably a book covers copyright belongs to the publsiher of the book or the photographer of the photo as photographs are creative works - unlikely to the person shown on the photo or the heirs of this person. Also the image is on w:en:File:RafaelGil.jpg under fair use, fair use is not allowed on Commons. --Martin H. (talk) 10:37, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

As I told you all that photos belong to Gil Family, the book was edited under our orders and collaboration.We have all the rights, this rights don't belong to editors (which are public statements) nor photgraphers (unknown photographers that took pictures of Rafael Gil while he was recording his films, such a "making off"). I am going to upload images of my grandfather and write more information about him, so don't delete them, because all that pictures and information belong to Rafael Gil's sons and grandsons.

If you assure not to violate any third party copyrights, ok. For that bookcover: highly questionable. Also an unknown photographer gaines copyright for his work, copyright lasts the lifetime of the photographer +70 years thereafter. A person inside an image normaly dont gain copyright for a photo of himself, the photographer can give a print to him for use, but thats not a permission to license images so that everyone can use them for every purpose including commercial use. Copyright is possible in written form, so you may forward a written explanaition to OTRS refering to a complete line of written contracts from the photographer to the heires and that all heires agree to the free licensing. --Martin H. (talk) 11:35, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Is very comforting to see that there are such severe guardians of copyrights in Wikipedia, but this time i can ensure you that all the pictures and images of Rafael Gil belong to his family. When you talk about photographers rights think about this as example: Spielberg makes a movie and the photos of Spielberg (took by a photographer recruited and payed by Spielberg) while making this movie don't belong to Spielberg? Imagine Spielberg asking his "making off" photographers permission to publish his own photos! Your argument it's so absurdly meticulous that seems almost ridiculous. Sorry about that, and let me write and upload all the information that i have about my grandfather. Best regards

Realy not, the case is different: is a photo of spielberg, even spielberg himself can not use this photo - except for private purposes - without asking the copyright holder for permission.
With uploading images to Commons you give everyone the permission to use them for every purpose including commercial use. To do so you need the full copyright. Copyright belongs to the photographer, copyright is transferable in most countries, in written form. By default it belongs to the photographer, only if you have a written contract or a written permission you can use the photgraph and license it. --Martin H. (talk) 12:39, 31 August 2009 (UTC)


Thank you for your speedy action in changing the picture for me. However, unfortunately, you transferred the wrong file, thus the image stored is the same as the old one. Should I re-upload the corrected image so the bad one can be replaced, or can you retrieve the deleted one? Please let me know. Thank you, Patris Magnus (talk) 23:02, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Please bypass you browser cache :) --Martin H. (talk) 23:24, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
Interesting... I have my browser set to refresh every time a page is loaded. It should have worked. Thank you! Patris Magnus (talk) 00:14, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Brush up on your Copyright law Martin H.


Something I ran into with you, and which you seem to neglect to consider is a term called "work made for hire." I've repeatedly read you comment that the subject of a photo cannot be the author and therefore cannot hold the copyright. While you are correct that it's "unusual" for the subject of a photo to also be the author (and even that is possible), the key factor is the agreement between a photographer and the subject.

See the following:

One of the most important copyright concepts for photographers is “work made for hire” and it’s one that many people do not fully understand.

A fundamental copyright principle is that copyright ownership originally belongs to the creator - the person who fixes the work in tangible form. Generally, the person who clicks the camera shutter owns the initial copyright in the resulting photograph.

The major exception is if the photograph is a “work made for hire,” which can happen in two ways. First, if the person shooting the photograph is working within the scope of employment - for example a newspaper’s employed staff photographer – the work will be a “work made for hire” owned by the corporation.

Second, a work may be a “work made for hire” if the photographer and the person ordering the work expressly agree in writing that that the photograph is a “work made for hire.” In such case, the photograph is “specially ordered or commissioned,” and fits within one of the categories listed in Section 101 of the Copyright Act. A "work for hire" agreement creates an assignment of ownership and copyright from the photographer to the person ordering the work, who is in many cases the subject of the photograph. Etrangere (talk) 07:48, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Etrangere, the case is closed for me, you provided the required written permission and so it is ok, I dont want to have this discussed. Some bitter taste stays. You first claimed own work - wrong. You second claimed permission from the depicted persons spouse. You then claimed the work as an official photo, you then turned out, that you are the direct heir of the copyright holder, you know declare the photograph was created as a work for hire - which is unlikely for private persons. Im realy not interested. I cant read the OTRS, im not involved in this, so if you can combine your unclear informations and that you wrote a permission to a Creative Commons license in the name of someone who probably not agree to that license - not my problem.
Idealy you know the photographer, you know the source, you can provide a written permission from the photographer or you can clearly (and without tergiversations) provide a line of copyright transfer from the creator to you. You realy did not in this case. And now eod please, I never had someone who wants to discuss so much instead of simply providing correct and clear informations primarily. --Martin H. (talk) 23:54, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
Martin H., I agree a bitter taste is left. For me this is due to your demeanor and dismissive attitude. I don't think it's the first time that has been said either. Any claims I made were due to honest mistakes - not some sort of misleading agenda. I
  • I claimed my own work because I owned the photo and thought that was appropriate. I was wrong. I corrected it.
  • The work is an official photo. Taken by an employee of the UK for an employee of the UK who also happens to be the wife of the subject.
  • I am not the direct hire. Another mistake in judgment on your part. The photographer was the direct hire. Hence: the "work for hire" rule applies - and the copyright reverts to the subject who died, and left the photo to his heir.
  • Work for hire is NOT unlikely for private persons. You can go into any photo studio and hire a photographer to take a photo of you. This is but one example of a work for hire. I can think of many more.
  • Originally I didn't know the photographer - but I knew the heir to the photograph. But you insisted my information was not adequate.
  • I did provide "clear" information. You simply chose not to accept it.

If you're not involved, or interested - then why did you make such an issue of a situation which you clearly know next to nothing about? You should consider easing off on your mercenary edit tactics and accusations and simply ask people what it is they're trying to do. Every change I made was a direct response to your constant harassment. If you knew the changes that needed to be made in the first place then perhaps you should have just said so. The hallmarks of a good editor are diplomacy, explanation and correction rather than belittlement.

I meant "heir", excuse my english. Also you made the issue with starting a discussion... simply provide correct information, thats all needed. Official photograph created as a work for hire for the individual, photographer=spouse=heir who gave a written permission to someone else to publish the image under Creative Commons, thats a hard nut to crack. Case closed. --Martin H. (talk) 00:27, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

MZV photo

Look hier: (same case) Images from MZV ČR it free content

Yes, same case, also marked as missing permission. --Martin H. (talk) 11:46, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

File:Diaz julieta.jpg

Hi Martin. File:Diaz julieta.jpg comes from File:Julidiaz1.JPG, wich is not a copyvio. Was taken outside a tv studio. Alakasam (talk) 14:57, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Oh, was my mistake. I've been confused with File:Julidiaz1cropped.jpg. Thanks. Alakasam (talk) 15:01, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
No problem, I see you was iritated from I only sometimes revert copyright violations at the language projects. --Martin H. (talk) 15:37, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

No, I can't be iritated with a contributor like you. :) Alakasam (talk) 15:42, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Deletion of LUBILOSA and Green Muscle logos

Hi Martin,

I noticed that you deleted the LUBILOSA and Green Muscle logos (Logo Lubilosa.gif and Logo Green Muscle small.gif). Though I agree that the copyright information I gave was probably not very convincing, the copyright holders of both logos have since written to stating that they have no problem with publication of the logos on Wikipedia. Did these mails somehow fail to be brought to your attention or were they not convincing enough? If the latter, what would convince you? I saw the acknowledgment of receipt for the first mail and got the impression that the explanation had been accepted. Should the copyright holders now upload the images again themselves? ChriKo (talk) 22:02, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Hi ChrisKo, thanks for your note. Im not a member of the OTRS team who handle the emails, so I cant answer whether the permission was convincing or not. But I can say, that a permission for use on Wikipedia, as you said above, is not enough. Permission must be granted by the copyright holder that everyone, not only Wikipedia, can use a work for every purpose including commercial use or modification of the work under the terms of a free license, see Commons:Email templates. I will leave a note at the OTRS noticeboard so that they can keep an eye on the files. --Martin H. (talk) 23:13, 1 September 2009 (UTC)


Hi dear martin. its me again!!

what is your opinion about these pictures :

[8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18]

these pictures are from persian website and wiki rules dont permit us to upload and use these kind of pics.

what is your vote?

what do you do?

Gire 3pich2005 (talk) 12:04, 29 December 2009 (UTC)