User talk:Martin H./Archive 9

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.



I understand now. But then who will get the copyright permission and contribute a high resolution to the article and album cover? can you? If it is possible for you to do it, i will give you the image and you can do it :) Thanks for educating me! :)

Archive Note

It's my work

I feel that my English is so bad. Both images (PNCGN-Playas.png & PNCGN-CorrienteAlmeriaOran.png) are made entirely by me from the literature. Documents can be found at the links below. I changed the satellite map because a cut above other larger map and was not sure of its legality. I hope that now everything is correct because the required drawings to illustrate the article I am editing in the Spanish Wikipedia. I look forward to your comments. Best regards and my gratitude. --almamia (talk) 21:28, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

It is a joy for me. The next maps are the work of a fan of PowerPoint: me. Thanks again. --almamia (talk) 22:00, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

File:Kurita Ryoukan.jpg

but why my image is a violacion a derechos de autor. I´m only want know what is my wrong? sorry but I don´t speak english yo ablo español — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jasonet (talk • contribs) 23:41, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Please read Commons:Primeros pasos first:
1. Every image on Commons must be free! See Commons:Alcance del proyecto#Debe estar bajo licencia libre o en dominio público. You uploaded a file whose holder of copyright DOESN'T explicitely wish that everyone uses it for every purpose including commercial use.
2. See again Commons:Primeros pasos -> Commons:Primeros pasos/Selección de licencia -> File:Decision Tree on Uploading Imagesv2 es.svg
  • ¿Tiene la imagen más de 100 años? No.
  • ¿Creaste tú mismo la imagen? No.
  • ¿Se sabe quién es el autor o quién posee los derechos? Yes, Yusuke Murata.
  • ¿El autor falleció hace más de 70 años? No.
  • ¿El propietario de los derechos está de acuerdo con que se publique bajo una licencia libre? No. (see above what free means)
  • ¡No subas este archivo!.
--Martin H. (talk) 23:54, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Miwa Asao photos

Sorry about the mix-up. I left a notice at the talk page of each photo (File talk:MiwaAsao2008.jpg and File talk:MiwaAsao2008Serving.jpg)—basically, I've been in touch with the photographer and he agreed to release them, but accidentally marked the wrong license on flickr and I didn't check properly. I've sent him a message asking him to switch the license to CC-BY or CC-BY-SA, so that should hopefully be done within 24 hours. Apologies for the inconvenience, Rjanag (talk) 02:39, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

I already changed the speedy to no permission. Thanks for the info :) --Martin H. (talk) 02:41, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

illustrations with copyrighted logos

hi Martin,

i have a question. there are a lot of illustrations os football kits with logos of the clubs and the sponsors. my question is: is this legal? can i put logos in my illustrations if these aren't the main focus?

here are some examples:

these are from corinthians, but this appears in many others clubs.

thanks, tales.ebner 17:40, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Im not judging this, but I know of some past decicions where kits where deleted. The logos should be removed if they are not public domain. --Martin H. (talk) 17:45, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
so, what do you think? may i contact the user that uploaded them to do the changes and if nothing has been done i put to speedy deletion?
thanks again, tales.ebner 17:50, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
Yes, at least the Topper logo on File:Corinthians uniforme 1983.png should be removed, it is not public domain. I dont know about the club logos. --Martin H. (talk) 18:00, 1 July 2009 (UTC)


Can you explain what happened to this user? Please Vítor&R™ (Paranoid!) 19h02min de 1 de Julho de 2009 (UTC)

Blocked for execive sockpuppetry, see the talkpage (older version). The "Puppet master" User:Vitor mazuco had his chance, but he wasted it with still uploading unfree images and abusing multiple accounts. --Martin H. (talk) 18:06, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Nobody admires Wikipedia's article Avril Lavigne ... Check this image and the account... [1] What do you think? Vítor&R™ (Paranoid!) 19h10min de 1 de Julho de 2009 (UTC)

you are absolutely right, the uploader User:Jacson is another sockpuppet of User:Vitor mazuco. --Martin H. (talk) 18:14, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Just thought you should be warned. What will happen now? Vítor&R™ (Paranoid!) 19h16min de 1 de Julho de 2009 (UTC)

Im going to visit a Biergarten (jardins cervejeiros) and will have an eye on him later :) --Martin H. (talk) 18:19, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
See [2]...There is no doubt...Vítor&R™ (Paranoid!) 17h53min de 3 de Julho de 2009 (UTC)

Flickr image

Sometimes when you upload an image, you should check to make sure the bot passes it. It failed one of your images here and said the photo was not on the link...when it was there...and I submitted it to a new review. Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 06:59, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, Leo, for having an Eye on it, I missed this on my watchlist and have not reviewed "my" category for some days. --Martin H. (talk) 07:09, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

"Deletion log - Martin H. (Talk | contribs) deleted "File:Korean highway line 1.svg"

Hi, I was going to upload an svg version of File:Korean highway line 1.png, but found that you had deleted a previous version. Should I still upload the svg version, or was there some reason that you deleted the previous version? Thanks, Nevetsjc (talk) 08:08, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

The file was deleted per user request simply because it was empty (1 KB). --Martin H. (talk) 11:07, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

File:ReganMichaelJackson speedy deletion

You recently added a comment to my talk page stating I didn't give author and source information on a file I recently transfered from Wikipedia. I believe this is in error; source and author information - i.e., the US government; are provided, in a template. Also, this file was copied from Wikipedia, so should this template have been in error I recommend you contact the original uploaders on Wikipedia, who are listen on the file's page on comments. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Recipe For Hate (talk • contribs) 22:20, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

I already did this. --Martin H. (talk) 22:22, 3 July 2009 (UTC)



Watch this category:

Are signatures allowed on Commons? Er, well, the problem is that anybody could print this signature and could misuse it! I think signatures a private things that should not be published. By the way: Where on Commons are the paragraphes that allow the upload of signatures of celebrities? 22:41, 3 July 2009 (UTC) (incomplete signature: — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk • contribs) 22:41, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, signatures are ok. The reason you named is a non-copyright reason and not a problem here. For that problem see Commons:Non-copyright restrictions - if you abuse a signature for illegal purposes its your personal problem. The policiy regarding the copyright of signatures is Commons:When to use the PD-signature tag. This is only related to copyrights and also linked with the related license template {{PD-signature}}. --Martin H. (talk) 22:48, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

File:Honaz Dağı.jpg

Hi Martin! I saw your message on my [page] in English wikipedia. I had uploaded this originally in English wikipedia because, although the creator of the image had given his consent for use there, I was unable to obtain the standard "Creative Commons" declaration for general use under its conditions. Since it was transferred to wikimedia by another user later, I had thought that the question was settled. Therefore I am not in a position to provide more source information that what is already obvious in the file. I leave the decision on the preservation of the image up to you, while it would be a pity to lose it. Regards. --Cretanforever

Answered on your en.wp user talk. --Martin H. (talk) 12:00, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
I provided the link for the source and arranged the categories. If we think there is an acceptable basis for this one, I'll go through the other uploads I made from the same image creator, have the watermarked ones deleted and update the info for the rest. It could be a good idea to clip out the name of the source web site seen at the right bottom corner and rename this file "MountHonaz.jpg" since the Turkish name carries two peculiar characters which could be confusing in a Commons environment -I don't know how a file name change can be made in Wikimedia-. Regards. --Cretanforever
You can rename files whith {{rename|filename.jpg}} - a robot will reuplod it under the new filename. The effect is the same if you upload it again under a better filename and mark the old one with {{badname|newname.jpg}}. Thanks for your help, the problem is solved. done, --Martin H. (talk) 21:05, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Igreja de Nossa Senhora da Consolação da Feteira, ilha Terceira, Açores, Portugal.jpg

Good night, i’m glad to informe you that File:Igreja de Nossa Senhora da Consolação da Feteira, ilha Terceira, Açores, Portugal.jpg|foto is from my archives, as is indicated, and the same is with the category Category:Angra do Heroísmo and Category:Churches in the Azores. This photo and the others are located at (with the reference luissilveira) - ID: 9312707 (It’s me) Thank you for your contact. Silveira (talk) 22:42, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

  • You must understand that in course of life is usual to adquire several diferents types of cameras, in present I have a cell phone with camera and video options, is the example of (File:Pelos caminhos floridos da ilha Terceira.jpg - que foi tirada com telemovel). I have also a Kodak with paper, witch was passed on the scanner, and also a camera with floppy discs, or actually is a memory card. So I don’t understand your questions. One more time thank you for your contact. Silveira (talk) 23:11, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
    • I inform that retired “copyright violation” because its part of may work. Silveira (talk) 23:41, 5 July 2009 (UTC)


I do so that the image is not deleted — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk • contribs) 0:22, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

? Photo Agency is not an author. Who is the author (photographer), who is the owner of copyrights, who gave written permission per email that everyone can use this photo for every purpose including commercial use? --Martin H. (talk) 01:24, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

I know that agency is not an author photo and forgiveness, but I'm new at this, I do not want one of my new projects deletion cost and I do, really need help

The only thing you need is to know who is the photographer/holder of copyrights and you must have a written paper from them, that says, that everyone can use their image for every purpose including commercial use. The image must be free by the holder of copyrights wish! --Martin H. (talk) 01:37, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

you could help me?

No, if you dont even know the photographers name and dont have his/her written agreement to the requirements on Commons you can simply not upload the image. Commons:First steps (in the language of your choice) can help you. --Martin H. (talk) 01:40, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

would be best to raise another image where if the author knew?

Author known AND permission! Permission must grant everyone the right to use the image inside and outside Wikipedia including commercial use for no fees without future asking - irrevocable. No permission, no upload. --Martin H. (talk) 01:45, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

thank you very much



Du hast bei einem Foto die Lizenz von PD-USGov auf PD-US-Gov-Military geändert. Dies wäre nur gewährleistet, wenn der Fotograph, in diesem Fall ein gewisser "Steve McGill" ein Militärangehöriger ist. Dies geht jedoch nicht aus der Quelle hervor. Auf tummeln sich Unmengen an Bidlern, die von "Zivilisten" aufgenommen wurden. Da es quellentechnisch nicht belegbar ist, dass es sich um einen Militärangehörigen handelt oder nicht, schlage ich vor die Lizenz sicherheitshalber wieder auf PD-USGov abzuändern. Alles andere wäre Spekulation. Gruß, High Contrast (talk) 09:18, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Naja, genaugenommen geht aus der Quelle geht auch nicht hervor, dass es sich um einen Angestellten der US Regierung handelt. -Military verweist jedenfalls auf den Richtigen Anbieter. Ich habe als beleg für die Militärangehörigkeit dieses Bild herangezogen. --Martin H. (talk) 11:58, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
Bravo, alles klar. Quod erat demonstrandum. Gruß, High Contrast (talk) 14:17, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
ok, ich habe denen gerade geschrieben, dass bei einem (bei meinem) das Datum fehlt. --Martin H. (talk) 15:06, 6 July 2009 (UTC)


Sorry about the pictures I uploaded, I'm kind of new to this wikipedia editing thing and just thought that pictures would make some of the articles I edited better, I wasn't really aware of major copyright issues, and to be honest didn't bother reading up on the rules. I think I'll be sticking to writing from now on. My apologies again. --FilipBujnoch (talk) 16:45, 6 July 2009 (UTC) FilipBujnoch 6.07.2009

The X-Men files

Hey Martin people like you give bad name to wikipedia. If you want an encyclopedia Wikipedia is excellent stop deleting images that support the articles. Listen to me and see that Wikipedia will become even better. -Pabbiscindy (talk) 17:38, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

You dont yet understand what Wikimedia projects are. For Wikimedia Commons: Commons is a repository for freely usuable media files, files that everonye - inside and outside wikimedia projects - can reuse for every purpose including commercial use. For no fees, indefinitely, by the holder of copyright wish, as long as the terms of a free license are fulfilled. Same applies for Wikipedia texts. So please inform yourself about the very basic rules befor joining a project... --Martin H. (talk) 22:45, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Aishwarya Rai photo

Oops, sorry didn't realise that photo was considered as derivative. I have seen other similar photos and assumed they were ok; now I will know better. :) Copana2002 (talk) 00:14, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

No problem, I also didnt know this rule in my beginnings on Commons. --Martin H. (talk) 00:16, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Hi Martin, I have a.............

Hey Martin, I have a new photo(s) I would like to upload to my Wikimedia Commons account so it can be posted to my Wikipedia Page. I own them, once I upload it is it possible for you to take a look at the "fine print" so it can properly licensed and achived like my other 3?

Thank You Martin,

Jaderocker (talk) 16:48, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm a little unsure how I should go about uploading these photos, licensing category etc. Like I said me and my wife own these photos, they are from public sources. The MSNBC screenshot photo from "Body of Work" my wife saved to her computer using her Windows Movie Maker program while watching the video. She just paused the screen and saved the image. It is public, she saw it initially on You Tube. The second is of Killer Kowalski training me at his famous school back in 2000. This photo my wife saved from a public newspaper which is properly referenced on my Wikipedia page. How should the templates be set up for these 2 photos of me?

Thanks Again Martin,

Jaderocker (talk) 17:31, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

The copyright depends on the original copyright holder, see Commons:Derivative works. A screenshot is a derivative work of something that is in copyright, everything is under copyright even if it is published. As long as the original copyright holder not releases all rights or published his work under a free license you can not upload the image here (unfree Screenshot) --Martin H. (talk) 17:34, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm gonna upload the photos Martin and then ask me the details about them that you need to know to verify if they are "good" for Wikimedia Commons or not. Thank You!

Jaderocker (talk) 21:36, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

You should not. If something inside your work (photo or screenshot) is a creative work and enjoys copyright and is not exempted by freedom of panorama (for architectural works, statues or sculpture in public places) or de minimis (if the creative work covers only a very small portion of the image) your work is considered a derivative work and will be tagged as such and deleted per COM:DW. You will get the information {{derivativenote}} on your talkpage. --Martin H. (talk) 21:41, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Ok Martin, thanks. I guess I will not upload that photo. The photo was a screenshot of me on MSNBC. The photo has the MSNBC logo in the bottom left hand corner. My next photo is one that is probably my most cherished and I would love to upload it here. It is an action photo of me and another pro wrestler being trained by my friend, the Legendary Killer Kowalski. I have it in my own private photo gallery and it was featured in The Boston Phoenix Newspaper. Look on my Wikipedia Page under references and it is listed. What category of License should I upload this photo Martin?

Thank You for your promptness and professionalism Martin,

Jaderocker (talk) 22:07, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

I can oonly rely on what the website says: Copyright by Joel Veak, so you must provide written permission from the copyright holder. As the depicted person you have personality rights on the photo, noone can use it inapropiate against the law - but you dont have copyrights. The copyright is with the photographer or with the employer in case the photographer is hired and the copyright is transfered by contract (w:en:work for hire). This seems not the case, so you should ask the photographer for a photo not only for your own portfolio reasons but for free use - Commons:Email templates. --Martin H. (talk) 22:19, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the info buddy. I have Joel Veak's contact info. What should I say to him? Should I send him a template or something that will give me permission to use the photo or turn the copyright over to me if he doesn't care about the photo because it was so long ago and I really care about since Kowalski has passed away? Don't know, let me know Martin. I really appreciate you helping me out!

Jaderocker (talk) 22:30, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

I suggest to tell him your concern: You want to improve your Wikipedia article, you like his photos and you would appreciate to have it on your Wikipedia page. Wikipedia only accepts free content, that means free for every purpose. Ask him if he willings to give permission for one of his photo to publish under the license Creative Commons Attribution Share-Alike - he will get attribution for his work. Add the templates text to the end of your request and replace the [_variables_].
Furthermore Wikipedia is ok with small versions of photos, so called thumbnails. 500px on the longer side is sufficient for Wikipedia but not enought to use the photo in a printed commercial context (Newspaper, magazine). A better quality is always appreciated, but if the author is not ok with releaseing a high quality version you should ask for minor quality versions. --Martin H. (talk) 22:46, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
Next step: If you have his answer and the photo reveived you can forward an email to COM:OTRS like you did last time and upload the photo with the flag {{OTRS-pending}} (inclusive the curly braces). --Martin H. (talk) 22:48, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Hello Martin, I just emailed Joel Veak about getting his approval as copyright owner of the photo to officially use here at Wikimedia Commons under the proper license for my Wikipedia page article. As soon as I hear back from him I'll let you know what he says. As always, I appreciate all of your help my friend!

Jaderocker (talk) 00:35, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, your'e welcome! :) --Martin H. (talk) 00:38, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

There are still a couple of pro wrestling related photos that my wife took of me that I would like to upload to my Wikimedia Commons account which I will probably do since my wife owns them and they will enhance the article.

00:46, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

That goes with Commons:Upload - own work. Select an attribution like you want, maybe your wives name, if you dont want only your surname or your both name and surname. --Martin H. (talk) 00:52, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks so much Martin

Jaderocker (talk) 00:58, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Oh, forogot, you can also take your nickname, you not must leave anonymity (you already did, but still you can publish under a nickname) --Martin H. (talk) 01:04, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

re: helpdesk

danke sehr :) Lx 121 (talk) 19:47, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Gerne geschehen. --Martin H. (talk) 19:50, 8 July 2009 (UTC)


Excuse me? Mattythewhite (talk) 16:13, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Im sorry, I informed you, the uploader of File:James Meredith York City v. AFC Telford United 1.png instead of the vandal. --Martin H. (talk) 16:15, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Kate Winslet image

Hi. I noted you had approached a contributor about a Flickrwashing issue here and wanted to know if this was the same image. If so, hopefully you will know the Commons policy on dealing with it. I'm removing it from the en:WP article as I think it's the same image that I saw a little earlier. Thanks. Wildhartlivie (talk) 03:09, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Found it and deleted. --Martin H. (talk) 13:35, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Famous Stars & Straps image

Hello ! Why did you take off the image on the wiki "Famous Stars and Straps"? I thought as long as it's a logo you can put it on wikipedia? --Bls2009 (talk) 07:53, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

I guess you mean w:es:Famous Stars and Straps and File:Famous56.jpg. Your idea, that Logos are ok on Commons is not correct. Every image on Commons, also Logos, must be freely licensed or public domain. A free license can only give the copyright holder, that was not the case, something can be in the public domain because it is ineligible for copyright ({{PD-ineligible}}) but that was not indicated. So Logos are ok on Commons if they are to simple for copyright. In this case the uploader claimed to be the author and sole owner of copyrights and claimed to be eligible to license this image under a free license - see the log. Thats simply not true. The image w:en:File:FSAS.png on en.wikipedia is fair use, fair use is not accepted here. --Martin H. (talk) 13:43, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

File: Bettie_Page.tif

I've sent an e-mail to commons with the copy of the message were they release the image (recieved from Becky Thompson of CMG Worldwide, Inc.), so i'll appreciate that you restore the photo. You can contact with Rebecca Thompson on Bettie's official website at for further information.

BA images categories

Hi, I've noticed your message on User talk:Multichill, and wanted to let you know, that I've started discussion on the subject at Commons:Village pump. pibwl (talk) 20:13, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

done, thanks for the info. --Martin H. (talk) 15:39, 13 July 2009 (UTC)


What do you think?. Commons:Deletion requests/File:Escudoclorinda.jpg. Alakasam (talk) 21:12, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

I dont know which one is correct. Everything i can say: the source is wrong, the author is probably also not correct - or only co-authorship but not sole own work. --Martin H. (talk) 21:15, 12 July 2009 (UTC)


I found this.

Well, then I probably made a mistake. I apologize. I was ruminatting on this problem for a time before I made the change. But this flag is used only by a radical Hungarian party, that's why I was just on transferring this to the Hungarian File namespace. Now I've interrupted that. I don't know how to rename a file in the Commons, but never mind, let's keep this Swedish name. I will make the proper corrections on the description of the image in a few days, then we can continue this discussion if you still find that necessary.

Otherwise: if "a striped flag can be usefull", then create another striped flag for themselves, because this is not a striped flag, this flag has specific meanings. -- Orion 8 (talk) 13:28, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Thats just for your information: You blanked the page and overwrote an image that is in use in Wikipedia projects. You can rename or change the description of the image if something is wrong. Even if the historical context is totaly wrong or not existing and there is no other context this file is useful it can still have a name like "redstriped flag.filext" and can have a place on Commons. --Martin H. (talk) 13:40, 13 July 2009 (UTC) P.S.: also files that are not in use dont can be the target of page blank vandalism or overwriting. --Martin H. (talk) 13:41, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
All right, all right, please don't byte me. I intended my overwriting to be making just some order in our flags. I also had overwritten another flag because that had very low quality, the arms was distorted and improper, and there are several other copies of that flag in PNG and SVG files. Nobody links to that crap, in a few days that will be automatically deleted. Shall I restore that, too? If all pictures can have a function in the far future, what is the purpose of deletion request? And for last: you've written again about changing an image name. How can I do that? -- Orion 8 (talk) 21:11, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
No problem. If you overwrite an image with a better version it is ok. The warning was because you overwrote it with an warning image. See the usage of the file. If there is a superior version of this file this particular version should go. You request change of image names with {{rename|newname.jpg}}, the rename request will be reviewed, then a robot will re-upload the image under the new filename. Please use this tool only if necessary, the reupload creates work and breaks upload logs. --Martin H. (talk) 21:18, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for the lesson :-) I will use the new informations well. Üdv. -- Orion 8 (talk) 00:12, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
I already saw on my watchlist, great work, very good description :) --Martin H. (talk) 00:22, 14 July 2009 (UTC)


This photo is taken by a professional photographer. How are we sure, that the uploader is indeed the photographer without an OTRS permission? Stifle (talk) 15:23, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

en.wp userpage, administrator on en.wp, long standing contributor, good description with specified attribution, marking copyvios, selecting the very specific GFDL-1.2 for uploads. Thats far enough for AGF. --Martin H. (talk) 15:37, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

File Tagging File:RustyProjectProject3.jpg

Hi Martin, this pic has been taken by a friend of mine. She's just a normal person. What should I do to solve the problem?


The album cover comes from the band, so they or whoever is the owner of copyrights, mabye a lable, must give written permission on free reuse by everyone for every purpose including commercial use. The copyrigth owner should use the wording in Commons:Email templates and send his/her permission to OTRS. --Martin H. (talk) 19:35, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Fair Use

the pictures in my gallery

I am sorry they were uploaded

please go ahead and delete them, I do not know how...I tried to already, but I could not figure out how...

every single picture please

please email me afterwards


Nate — Preceding unsigned comment added by Relover89 (talk • contribs) 00:34, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

done. No problem, regretably for most users we have this "No fair use" rules here - please next time read the guidlines if you join a complexe project like Wikimedia Commons. --Martin H. (talk) 00:42, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
thank much


relover89 7/13/09
if I later wanted to get he copyright permission how would I do that I saw the drop down thing for send an email or get a permission but can you be specific?? and if it is from a site like myspace, where do I get the rights, do I send it to the band or myspace?? thanks Nate
relover89 7/13/09
You should ask the band to fill out an permission text giving permission to a free license like "Creative Commons Attribution Share-alike 3.0", thats the prefered license. It allows everyone to reuse the image for every purpose including commercial use. Thats the requirement on Commons. --Martin H. (talk) 03:08, 14 July 2009 (UTC)


ese archivo realmente es mio. son protectores que poseo. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Andres sanca (talk • contribs) 02:35, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

clearly not, I answered on your talkpage. --Martin H. (talk) 12:21, 14 July 2009 (UTC)


it's my work. i took the photo. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Liltea (talk • contribs) 03:11, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Please forward a written permission as requested. --Martin H. (talk) 12:20, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Aziz Kocaoğlu

Hello Michael! If you are saying that I should send an e-mail to wikimedia permissions to submit the image in question for an OTRS reference, I will do that. Then I will ask you not to delete speedily the image uploaded in English wikipedia (and initially in Turkish wikipedia) This was -and still is almost:)- the one used by the Metropolitan Municipality of İzmir in their web site. In other words, the source is the official body headed by the person in the photograph. If you check, its source is given as Thüringer Staatskanzlei, in much the same way. --Cretanforever

With one difference: The image of Kocaoglu was simply taken from the website I suspect, the image of Althaus was given from the creator with a written permission on free reuse including commercial use, this written legal document is stored in the OTRS system. --Martin H. (talk) 12:18, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
Your suspicions on such minute proceedings having been complied with for the upload of are, I suspect, based on suspect argumentative ground. Diese Benutzerseite existiert noch nicht. I shouldn't be teaching you German, although I recall en:Helmut Kohl having once remarked that en:Mesut Yılmaz spoke better German than him, so there could be precedents after all, but since Yılmaz is center-right and Kocaoğlu center-left, without any political language here and in plain English, a holder of office and regionally prominent politician deserves an image like the ones in article 1 and article 2, and I ask you not to delete the image in the first because, since its seniority sounds hollow to your ears, I will obtain a likeness of that one through regular Creative Commons procedure from İzmir Municipality and submit by e-mail which, I assume we both agree, will be an improvement on the obviously amateurish and, despite our general meticulousness here, unchecked images previously uploaded here. Regards. :) -- Cretanforever
I agree, that every image with the permission of the author is an improvement for Wikimedia/Wikipedia, If you can provide a written permission from the Izmir municipality it would be great, please consider using Commons:Email templates. I dont understand the rest as I realy dont know about, and not interested in, local politics in turkey. The term "Diese Benutzerseite existiert noch nicht" reads similar to User:John Doe - a nonexisting userpage, but it does not mean anything. The image comes from the office of the primeminister of the Free State of w:en:Thuringia and is backed up by an official release send per email to OTRS, so realy no problem there. --Martin H. (talk) 00:12, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
Okay. I'll do accordingly. Regards. Cretanforever


Hello! I downloaded a few pre-revolutionary postcards of Petrozavodsk. After the warning, I wrote the authors. Please remove the plate. Thanks. Igriks (talk) 21:44, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

I dont know, where the information about the photographer of the postcards comes from, but at least a source weblink is given now to replace the source "Интернет" (Internet). --Martin H. (talk) 07:07, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
Thanks) Igriks (talk) 11:30, 15 July 2009 (UTC)


Hello. You've deleted some images about Nosferatu film (File:Nosferatu on Ship.jpg, File:Vampire in the window.jpg, etc.). I suppose this image should be deleted in this case too ? Spectorman (talk) 18:08, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, the images are not ok on Commons, of course I cant say which copyright rules apply on ru.wp, but at the moment the license and the "unknown" authorship is wrong and a bit careless. --Martin H. (talk) 00:06, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
The same rules on - be free in the USA and in the country of origin. Thanks, Spectorman (talk) 06:07, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Oedipina maritima

Hi Martin,

I fully understand the need of protecting copyrights but you deleted a simple picture of a critically endangered species, Oedpina maritima, which was for for public use in the mind of the photographer. How can we find a balance between the need to illustrate our articles (in my case these are mostly translations) and the respect for copyrights? -Adumoul (talk) 11:59, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

The image must not be for public use only, it must be free to use by everyone for every purpose including commercial use by the authors/photographers wish. To reach this basic requirement for every text and media in Wikimedia projects and consequently also of Commons:Project scope#required licensing terms you must ask the photographer to release the photo under a free license that allows this usage. You can use Commons:Email templates. The image was marked as copyright violation because you claimed to be the photograper (author) which is still visible in the upload log. The original photo comes from, it says that it is free for academic or personal use but thats not free enough for Commons as commercial use is not allowed and the creation of derivative works based on this photo is not mentioned. "For other uses [...] contact [the author]" is written there, you rather should have done this befor uploading the photo here. --Martin H. (talk) 12:43, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Thank you Martin, I just emailed the author about getting his approval as copyright owner of the photo to officially use here at Wikimedia Commons under the proper license. As soon as I have his approval with the proper form I'll request the reinsertion of the picture . I appreciate your very competent help.(talk)

Thanks, If you get a permission and forward it to OTRS you can give the filename with you email, so it will be restored asa the permission is confirmed by an OTRS volunteer. --Martin H. (talk) 23:12, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

User trying to upload copyrighted images

hi, it's me again.

the user Flamengoshow (talk · contribs) uploaded an image of the brazilian footballer Adriano with a tag of OTRS pending. but this image was already deleted from commons because of copyright.

in the source of the image he wrote "achei na internet", what means "i found on the internet". the image is from a big media site from brazil called and can be viewed here.

i wanna know what can be done to delete this image, 'couse i cant't (i think it's becouse of the OTRS tag).

thanks, tales.ebner 15:35, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Of course copyvios. The source overrides any permission, he dont even know or care about the copyright holder, so how should any permission should come through? Thanks. --Martin H. (talk) 15:37, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Imagem deletada

Hi, that image I uploaded (Baby com chupeta) is a photo of my nephew. Sorry, I do not know almost nothing about the Commons and would like to tutor.Luansfl (talk) 00:28, 16 July 2009 (UTC) Sorry not speak English, and translate that message into Google.

  • I get the license the image. Thanks and bye! Luansfl (talk) 16:47, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Hallo The Picture was updated

The source of that picture that you sent me the message about has been updated.

--احمد-نجيب-بياباني-ابراهيمخېل (talk) 14:01, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Britney Spears Poster

Is this picture ok? [3]

Regretably not. See the image on Commons:Primeros pasos/Selección de licencia from the photographers view:
Roshelia is the photographer, yes, and she agrees to a free license, but the image is not free of third party rights and she dont have the permission of those third parties to the license. The image is unfree because the poster is unfree, Commons:Derivative work. --Martin H. (talk) 18:48, 17 July 2009 (UTC)


Hi Martin.H

Sorry for my bogus uploads. Actually I'm new to contributing.

I came across a site

The license(see bottom of the page) says "This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 2.5 License All content on this website (including text, photos, audio, video files and other original works) unless otherwise noted is free to share, copy, distribute, display, perform or to Remix and make derivative works in commercial/non-commercial use with attribution"

Can I upload photographs from this source ? I am asking this because search results in photos from other sources too. Can we include all pics or only the pics sourced by this site.

In the first place how acceptable are materials from this source.


The license is compatible with Commons, commercial reuse and the creation of derivatives is allowed, the website claims this for the photos too. Its difficult. I checked e.g this, and yes, it seems to be ok. But one link more to shows, that clearly nothing is under their copyright.
Also their terms of service are totaly different. So I personally would dismiss all content from this site and would ask the uploader to first ask the website if the cc license is vallid and intended.
--Martin H. (talk) 19:38, 17 July 2009 (UTC)


The image is a scan of the cover of my book. I'll contact the publisher and will write back.

--Wikirefine (talk) 20:48, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, please provide a written permission from the copyright holder that says, that the holder of copyrights agree to the licensing and the terms of the license. Please send the email to OTRS as requested on your talkpage, every information will be handled confidentially in OTRS. --Martin H. (talk) 20:58, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Related Users ?

Hi Martin, in relation to this question ...probably the same user or friends using the same computer and colluding over things. What is most vexing is the lack of an interaction other than uploads (here) or mainspace edits (enwiki)- Peripitus (talk) 23:21, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

They should start a little Commons:First steps reading session together ;) lol. Of course they all edit w:en:Joseph Estrada. I had the same problems with User:Jcsadian once. --Martin H. (talk) 23:42, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

OK Martin the photographer has contacted me

Hey Martin, just getting back to you now about this. The photo of me in training back in 2000 that was copyrighted, well the photographer/owner of that photo contacted me today and said he would be happy to give me permission to post it to my Wikipedia article. He isn't sure and neither am I how I should send the request to permissions here at Wikimedia Commons. I'll stand by for your advice, which is always like gold. Thank You!

Jaderocker (talk) 00:51, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Use the text from Commons:Email templates and replace the [variables] e.g.:
forward the email to COM:OTRS (permissions-commons at wikimedia dot org). You email will be handled confidentially, address data, names or whatever will not be disclosed. An OTRS volunteer will add a number to your upload to indicate that the permission was checked by the Wikimedia Foundation OTRSystem. --Martin H. (talk)

Sorry buddy, don't be mad....I'm still not sure how to plug the info in because I'm not sure where his name goes etc.

Jaderocker (talk) 01:17, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

I shouldn't say that, the link and license. License because I currently don't own the photo he does right this moment so I don't know what license. And I guess the link is the link to the page the photo comes from right?

Jaderocker (talk) 01:20, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

The link can be everything, a link to the Commons upload, to the source or in my example a description of the image. The license is the copyright holders choice, correct, I suggest the most commons license, the {{cc-by-sa-3.0}} but maybe you find a better one in Commons:License tags. CC-by-sa-3.0 means that everyone can use the photo as long as the author is attributed and every new copy is published with the same license and that the license is indicated with every reuse. A reuse of the photo in the newspaper must read "Photo by xyz / CC-by-sa-3.0" or something similar. --Martin H. (talk) 01:26, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

File:Souri66.jpg,File:Souri66 cropped.jpg

Hallo.I am Japanese.I am sorry that I do not know English very much.This is a link about copyrights on the webpage of Prime Minister of Japan and His Cabinet. --政治野球マニア (talk) 07:47, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

I changed Licensing of File:Souri66.jpg and File:Souri66 cropped.jpg.--政治野球マニア (talk) 05:05, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

I think that the terms of use are not free for derivative works, so you can not modify the images. Thats not free enough for commons, see Commons:Project scope#required licensing terms. But I can only trust on a machine translation, so somone with japanese language skills must decide this. --Martin H. (talk) 10:53, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

It is written in the webpage that webpage's content can quote and reproduce if the source of the picture is given. Aren't these enough ?--政治野球マニア (talk) 09:18, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Surely 2.3 of say modifications are not allowed.--政治野球マニア (talk) 09:56, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

File:Tony Blair WEF 2008 cropped.jpg

Discussion at w:Wikipedia:Help desk#Picture vandalism. The log [4] says you didn't restore the vandalized version of File:Tony Blair WEF 2008 cropped.jpg but a vandalized image of a lemon with text "Politics left you bitter?" is currently displayed. It has been on w:Tony Blair until today where another image was chosen.[5] PrimeHunter (talk) 13:08, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

I realy dont understand this. I removed two versions from the history:
  • 12:52, 9 July 2009 . . Mootle (Talk | contribs | block) 640×533 (56,606 bytes) (cropped).
Thats the vandalism version showing a sick foot, something from or so.
13:03, 9 July 2009 . . Timrollpickering (Talk | contribs | block) (826 bytes) (uploaded a new version of "File:Tony Blair WEF 2008 cropped.jpg": Reverted to version as of 12:33, 27 March 2008)
That was a simple revert to a picture showing Tony Blair.
I reverted the image, i reviewed it, i wrote a "thank you" to the reverter - I left his version deleted to keep the file in the original uploaders gallery. The image shows Tony Blair since the uplaod, otherwise it would not have passed Flickr review, otherwise I would not have added the WEF tag, otherwise the revert would not show the face of Tony Blair. The image must be overwritten in a way I dont undetstand. --Martin H. (talk) 13:23, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

I have been going to the blair page quite regualarly. almost daily.. and today was the fist time I noticed the lemon. {Off2riorob (talk) 21:25, 18 July 2009 (UTC))

I am thinking it has been overwritten internaly by someone at wikipedia with permission for oversight. (Off2riorob (talk) 21:27, 18 July 2009 (UTC))
I more think it was overwritten during the server trouble, there are some trouble with uploads not appearing in any log or history. But im realy interested in who uploaded it. --Martin H. (talk) 21:33, 18 July 2009 (UTC)


Hey -- thanks for leaving a note on my talk page. I moved the file from en.wikipedia using a tool suggested there (I didn't take/steal/whatever the image myself). Maybe the copyright status didn't transfer correctly? I honestly have doubts that the image is free like it was listed by the original uploader. Bsimmons666 (talk) 21:09, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

You can forward the message to the original uploader. --Martin H. (talk) 21:10, 18 July 2009 (UTC)


Martin - I wrote Shuffle with Jason Schwartz in Los Angeles. It is registered with the WGA. We hope to pitch it to network television in the very near future... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Spotcha (talk • contribs) 05:26, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Catedral de Canarias

Hola , por que quitas las fotos de la Catedral de Canarias si no tienen copyright , si les falta algo lo podrias añadir o algo pero no quitarlas.

I think you refer to File:Catedraldecanarias.JPG? You did not select a license with your upload. There was a message on the image for 4 weeks. Please immidiatly fix the problems. --Martin H. (talk) 16:24, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Two Flagged Files

Hello. You flagged two files, stating that they needed permissions but both files have permissions (licenses) that have been granted to all. Both files are public domain. As I stated when I submitted them, I made the files, I own them, and I published them. I followed Wikipedia's procedures, so I wonder why you feel that is not sufficient?

The two files are: File:In_lights-delay.jpg File:Turning.jpg

And here's a sample of the information I used when submitting these:

{{Information |Description={{en|1=In Light's Delay book cover}} |Source=Own work by uploader |Author=Newtonsand |Date=1988 |Permission= |other_versions= }} <!--{{ImageUpload|full}}--> 

They are PUBLIC DOMAIN and have been so since the dates of initial creation (1988 and 2001). Ultimately, I did not use them on Wikipedia when editing the author's page (Ron Terpening), so this is not an essential issue. Newton Sanders, Publisher, Desert Bloom Press, Tucson, AZ 85743-8614, Newtonsand (talk) 22:19, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

I answered on your talkpage. --Martin H. (talk) 22:29, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
Thanks. I'm in the middle of two disasters right now, so don't have time to do as requested. Please feel free to delete both images.Newtonsand (talk) 22:42, 19 July 2009 (UTC)


Yes, you are right. I was confused about the correct license. Thanks for correcting it. Moreover, the site of the government of Transnistria has much material, and most are free.

Greetings, --Banfield (talk) 02:44, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Something wrong with Wikipedia's image administration

Re: 1) Editor's summary: Please send a permission for File:Charon_and_the_crossing.jpg 2) Editor's summary: Please send a permission for File:Lodovico_dolce.jpg

There's something wrong when book cover images are freely used by the following sources: • • Google books • Barnes and • Bowker (handles online and printed Books in Print) • Baker & Taylor (the major wholesaler of books to libraries) • Ingram (the major wholesalers to bookstores), and used book sites such as: • Alibris • Abebooks and • and then Wikipedia comes along and asks for a formal permission to be entered.

I find your request priggish and your attitude that of a martinet. I think Wikipedia's administrative body (if there is such a thing) needs to discuss this issue in general. You don't seem to realize that publishers want images of their book covers made available to the general public; this is a form of advertisement for the book and can only result in good (e.g., possible sales for the book in question). It's not remotely the same as another publisher stealing the book cover (as if they could do this from front-cover images that are way too small for printing!) for their own edition of the book (i.e., stealing the copyrighted book itself).

Despite my disagreement with your demands, I will attempt to upload something that will pass as the necessary permission, but I find you way off base on this.Ronterp (talk) 15:46, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Please remember, that this is not Amazone. We don't have images for one purpose - with a service in return for the publisher - and we don't have fair use for educational purposes only. Permission is also not for Wikipedia or Wikimedia. Images on Commons can be used by absolutely everyone for every purpose including commercial uses, so permission is for everyone! If I write my own book and I need a book cover I can take File:Charon and the crossing.jpg. Its public domain, its free for commercial use, its free for derivative works so I can remove the authors name and put my own name on it. Of course as long as I not break any other laws like unfair competition and others varying from country to country. That's totally different to Amazone who have, or have not, a single purpose permission and don't allow reuse of their content. --Martin H. (talk) 15:54, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
Martin! You don't appear to understand what a printer needs in order to publish or use an image for a book cover. The two images in question are 301kb and 254kb in size! So even at highest resolution they are something like 430x648 pixels. Do you realize how impossibly small that is for a book cover? An average image size for a book cover would be well over 6,500 kb! And that's at only 300dpi when most printers want a dpi that is closer to several thousand. You need an image file that is many megabytes in size. These piddling images could never be used. Try it with anything that's not on the web and you'll soon find out what I mean. The image, even on a small cover, would print as either pixelated or so fuzzy as to be laughably bad. So your argument, while understandable, is marred by your lack of awareness of printing demands for book publishing. And, if you come back to say: Well, it could be used on an online web book, my response is: The publishers of both those books (Lodovico Dolce and Charon and the Crossing) put the cover images online (and at a higher resolution than here on Wikipedia), so why wouldn't a thief go to their sites for a better image? I'm going to try to give you what you want, but you have failed to convince me (and I hope others) of the validity of your argument. You're being excessively picky, as I stated in my first message. Ronterp (talk) 21:59, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
Ron, I fully understand your arguments and already from your initial posting here I saw, that the upload is correct and the licensing is intended. But please remember that this is a repository where everyone can upload. Many well doing and some professional users like you many people with no or little knowledge of copyrights and a small number of users grabbing images from all over the web and claiming them their own work - ok, thats not scientific books but pop&rock, comics, recent events or photos of cities and buildings. You can review examples in Category:Unknown. The result is that all users are requested to validate their uploads using OTRS and following our (proposed) policy Commons:Permission especially to validate "professional looking" uploads or uploads by users with a user name that suggests that they may be the person who created it. Thats a well doing approach to keep this project inline with its ambitions. So thanks for your understanding. According to your pending email we can also handle your previos deleted upload File:Stormtrack.jpg. As a courtesy I created Category:Ron Terpening to collect files related to your work. --Martin H. (talk) 22:49, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for your kindness, Martin. I thought I'd make just one more point, for fun's sake! The University of Toronto Press (publishers of my book Lodovico Dolce, Renaissance Man of Letters) asked me for ideas for the dustjacket cover. I came up with the image from an anonymous woodcut printed in a book by Lodovico Dolce dating to 1561, and found again in 1572. UTP used the image I provided, but did nothing to change the image, which is necessary for them to try to claim any type of copyright status. In fact, the dustjacket has no indication of copyright. So the image on the front cover dates to the mid-16th century. Hard to say that's not copyright-free! But I am waiting on UTP for their emailed permission, which I will get to you once I have it in hand. Thanks for your patience. Ronterp (talk) 05:51, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
True, such an old image is normaly covered by {{PD-art}}, no matter who photographed it it is public domain because it is a simple 2D reproduction. --Martin H. (talk) 14:12, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
Hello, Martin. I've received permission from the head of Associated University Presses, Inc., to use the image Charon_and_the_crossing.jpg, but I realized after receiving it that you have a specific license form tha Wikipedia requires. So I'm sending back the license form to be resubmitted. When I received that, I'll forward a copy to permissions. I'm still waiting on the University of Toronto Press (re: Lodovico_dolce.jpg). Thanks. Ronterp (talk) 20:00, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Hi Ron, the specific form, Commons:Email templates, is recommended but not required. --Martin H. (talk) 21:17, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

I forwarded the positive response for the file Charon_and_the_crossing.jpg an hour or so ago. I used the Creative Commons License Deed (the CC-By-SA, I believe it was), which seemed most appropriate for an image. Damn! On reflection, seeing the template you recommend, I probably made an error. I submitted the Creative Commons file by itself for the publisher's approval, but not with all the wording of the template you recommend. I hope that does not sabotage the approval; I've asked the Director of the Association of University Presses, Inc., TWICE now for permission. I'm going to feel like a real idiot if I have to go back to him a third time. This is due to my lack of familiarity with how Wikipedia functions. Ronterp (talk) 23:59, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
Hi Martin. I forwarded a permission (from the Director of the Associated University Presses) for the image: Charon_and_the_crossing.jpg on July 21, 2009 to However, just over a week later, the image file still does not show this permission. The Director of the AUP, Dr. Julien Yoseloff, gave permission to reproduce the image under the Creative Commons License Deed, Attribution 3.0 Unported. Is there any way for you to follow-up (to update the image file with this permission)? Thanks for any help you can provide. Ronterp (talk) 19:04, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

talk to me

hola. el archivo celebritycds.jpg no es mio, debe ser de otro usuario con mi mismo nickname. debe ser por eso que me sale un aviso de pelea IP entre redes.

Yes, I selected the wrong filename to inform you on your talkpage. The warnings was for File:Felicia.jpg. --Martin H. (talk) 23:55, 20 July 2009 (UTC)


i thought it is just an old photo. forgot where it is form, sorry about that. [[GeorgeZhao |GeorgeZhao]] 03:16, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

The "no source" is about the "own work". The author is the photographer. Also a source should be possible, the image was taken from somewhere. Also a date is necessary to say anything more about the copyright status. --Martin H. (talk) 14:09, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

[6]Shin_Chaeho WAS died on 1936, so the photographer for this photo should be more than 70 years. Gzhao (talk) 00:38, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Madonna cross

Hello Martin can I upload this photo? [7] If I can't why I can't do it? --Gaston S/Kpo! 09 (talk) 04:08, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

I dont understand Vietnamese ;) It depends on what "Chụp bởi thành viên Trixie 76" means. makes me unsure. A video Screenshot maybe? --Martin H. (talk) 14:07, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Image with properly Copyright is deteleted

Hi Martin, need you help.

I am journalist and I updating the biography of an artist. I upload the images Cides.jpg with have copyright in Creative Commons and I provide a link with properly permissions from his author that is available at

However you deleted it again (Copyright violation). Please, let me know what is the reason and what it is nedeed to upload the images succefully, may be I forget some thing.


The indicated license is non-commercial and non-derivative, this is not free enough for Wikipeda and Commons. See Commons:Project scope#required licensing terms. Please first obtain a proper permission/license from the author that allows for commercial use and derivative works by everyone. That not means that the license on that website must be change, you can get the permission using Commons:Email templates and send it to Commons:OTRS. --Martin H. (talk) 14:04, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Removal of images

Dear Martin, I think you're making a mistake. You are deleting images that have copyright (Vista_de_Pé_de_Serra.jpg, Matriz_Pé_de_Serra.jpg, Serra_do_Leão.jpg), among others. I assume that I loaded a copy of images (CollagePOSpics.jpg, for example) because it works only on the English Wikipedia. I will upload the pictures that refer to the city of Pé de Serra, as are mine. I hope that is not deleted again. Thank you! --Celsonlc (talk) 21:51, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Celson, you are not the photographer of some/many of your uploads but you uploaded this images as "own work". I dont think thats correct... Please make your own photographs and upload them but not copy from other webistes. --Martin H. (talk) 23:25, 21 July 2009 (UTC)



No, thats not possible. --Martin H. (talk) 02:53, 23 July 2009 (UTC)


Sorry, but not interested. I strongly oppose "fair use". And please remember that this is not a webcomunity or browsergame with promotions or blocks for fun. --Martin H. (talk) 03:00, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

The Onyx Hotel Tour

Hi can I upload this photo? [8]

No, the license is not free for commercial use, but this is a basic requirement on Commons, see Commons:Alcance del proyecto#Términos de licencia requeridos. --Martin H. (talk) 18:04, 23 July 2009 (UTC)


Hello. Re tagging the image as "no source" [9]: the caption says in Spanish "Photo I took of Ricardo Enrique Bochini, and later loaded to the computer with scanner". Whether or not the uploader is reliable may be another issue, but it does seem to have a claim of source. Cheers, Infrogmation (talk) 14:37, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Many other photos by this user where found copyright violations, the quality of this photo is a bit different to File:Denis Assmann.jpg, File:Pepe Santoro 1.jpg, File:Pepe Santoro 2.jpg. The source claim "own work" is obviosly wrong: different quality, web size image. --Martin H. (talk) 21:54, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

File:Abbas el-Akkad.jpg

  • guten tag, wie geht's dir? mein name ist Riad. kannst du mir bitte mal sagen warum hast du den Vorlage Löschantrag auf das bild von Abbas el-Akkad? hast du Nicht die gesetze von ägypten gelesen? alles gute.--Riadismat (talk) 14:41, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

File:Bartezzaghi crema con spinelli 2008.JPG

I'm an OTRS operator, and I personally checked the OTRS ticket #2008022310007271 shown in the file description. The picture is ok, authorization is confirmed. -- Sannita - not just another sysop 21:29, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for cheking it. --Martin H. (talk) 21:40, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

What's going on with you?

The image has the author, the date, the OTRS permission by the author and the source. What's going on with you? Why the template? --Daviddavid00 (talk) 23:23, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

The tag is: {{cc-by-sa-3.0-de}} --Daviddavid00 (talk) 00:03, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
Then add it. --Martin H. (talk) 00:05, 25 July 2009 (UTC)


What's wrong with this photo [10] --Gaston S/Kpo! 09 (talk) 00:48, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Someone marked it as "missing source", I agree because I dont think that Rsolermo is the photographer. His contributions dont look like the work of a professional photographer. But I did not tag it, I dont know where it is from. --Martin H. (talk) 01:12, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
Ok, I found the image. Deleted it, reason given in the log. --Martin H. (talk) 01:25, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

copyright violation?

How can you TELL me that I have violated copyright by uploading logos of the New Worlds Alliance when I am a member of the alliance and was given permission by the council to use the logos in the first place?

I am the 1st officer of Via Astris (Star Trek Club of the Philippines) which is the group that started the alliance in the first place. I am also the founder of Xena Philippines. My picture/s and articles can also be found on the Via Astris page.

If you want to, go ahead and contact the council members of the New Worlds Alliance and check up on me. I prefer that over being accused of copyright violation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk • contribs) 08:57, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

If you refer to any username or filename I can go into the issue, otherwise I cant do anything. --Martin H. (talk) 14:11, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Dirceu Images

Hi Martin. I am the son of Dirceu, I scanned old photos here at home and i found others on the nte to tell the history. I am new here and not know how to categorize. apologize for any inconvenience Salernobr (talk) 15:57, 25 July 2009 (UTC)salernobr

how do I know that of old photos stored here at home? So how can I put photos taken by me or my family memebers? (ex: Dirceu_Ebolitana.jpg, Dirceu_bologna.jpg and dirceu_Showbol). Please help me. Salernobr (talk) 17:05, 25 July 2009 (UTC)salernobr

Sandpeople Album Covers

File:TiedToThings.jpg - I'm only working on composing 1 article. It's about the Portland based hip hop group "Sandpeople". I'm doing so with their expressed written permission. One of the group members is the creator for all of the album cover artwork on all of their albums. I have his permission to use these images. How do I go about getting you that proof? --Equanimous One (talk) 20:45, 25 July 2009 (UTC)


You think all based on one case. Don't talk about it. In the case of Port of Spain can't I use the images in the Portuguese Wikipedia, I need help from you. Celsonlc (talk) 22:25, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

I count ~10 cases. Regarding File:POScrest.jpg: You need permission from the copyright holder, maybe the City administration. See Commons:Modelos de mensajes#Declaración de permiso para todas las peticiones, they have to agree to this and send it to OTRS. --Martin H. (talk) 22:29, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Copyvio continues

You warned User talk:Timmers2121 about copyvios yesterday. The user has since uploaded another, which I have tagged for deletion, and then inserted it into an article on Wikipedia. Just FYI. - ALLSTRecho wuz here @ 04:35, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Blocked, thanks. --Martin H. (talk) 13:44, 26 July 2009 (UTC)


hello did not know that the photo of Totti had a fake license in flickr, you should also check that this is the same author and was rising by another user.

As for the shield you should delete it once because the picture is of a book.

You could check this: and Already been verified by a robot but a need to revise the administrator

Thanks. Excuse me for my english. Mansoncc (talk) 01:34, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, File:Giovinco - Juve.jpg is deleted, it was a copyright violation too. --Martin H. (talk) 01:36, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Zu spät gesehen

Hallo Martin, ich habe bei einer Menge Bilder gedacht sie seinen copyvios weil die Quelle sie als cc-by-nc-nd-3.0-de angegeben hat. Allerdings zeigt die Benutzerseite, dass der Uploader her Hersteller ist - er hat für eines der Bilder eine OTRS-Nachricht geschickt. Löschst du deswegen Commons:Deletion requests/File:Movicons2-hello.gif? Ich finde kein speedy template für reinemachen auf Commons. Danke. Hekerui (talk) 13:38, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Das ging ja schnell! Danke! Hekerui (talk) 13:40, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
Keine Ursache. Die richtige Vorlage ist {{speedy|Begründung}}, Begründung gerne auch in deutsch, wenn du einfaches deutsch verwendest kann es jeder en-n Admin mit Googletranslate übersetzen, ansonsten sind es eh ziemlich viele deutschsprachige Admins die hier für Ordnung sorgen ;). --Martin H. (talk) 13:42, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Rosalia de souza pic

This image is free for use:

You are free:

   * to copy, distribute, display, and perform the work

Under the following conditions:

   *      Attribution — You must give the original author credit.
     Attribute this work:
     What does "Attribute this work" mean?
     The page you came from contained embedded licensing metadata, including how the creator wishes to be attributed for re-use. You can use the HTML here to cite the work. Doing so will also include metadata on your page so that others can find the original work as well.
   *      No Derivative Works — You may not alter, transform, or build upon this work.

Utopial (talk) 14:06, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

I know this text ;) No Derivative Works — You may not alter, transform, or build upon this work. Thats not free enough for Commons. --Martin H. (talk) 14:07, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
yeh i just realised - it's different to the english wikipedia. pretty stupid set up. really limits the pictures you can use. is there a way of linking a picture to the portuguese wiki without having to use commons? Utopial (talk) 14:18, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
Also the english Wikipedia not accept non-derivative files - excpet "fair use" images. Every Wikipedia project accepts only free images, images that are free for every purpose. Regarding the pt.wp: No, only Commons. The non-derivative term is not reasonable for photos in my eyes, maybe you can ask the Flickr user to change the license to cc-by or cc-by-sa. --Martin H. (talk) 14:19, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
Thanks mate. I'll contact him and see wat he says. Why can't wikipedia set itself up so that u can use images like this so long as u dont edit them (which im not)?Utopial (talk) 14:29, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
It simply must be free for every purpose. Long discussion at Commons talk:Licensing/Explaining why Derivative Work and Commercial Use must be allowed. Shorter: Martin H. (talk) 14:33, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
Thanks, yeh i guess photographers like the publicity. FOr some reason The phot isn't linking through to: Do you know why?Utopial (talk) 15:21, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
Already saw this and fixed it. --Martin H. (talk) 15:22, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
Great! Thanks for all of your help. Now I know what to do for next time! Utopial (talk) 15:23, 27 July 2009 (UTC)


Hi can you move this photo to commons? [11]

Clearly a copyvio. --Martin H. (talk) 21:59, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Coat of arms and flags

Hi Martin: are COAs and flags of provinces and countries in PD? I mean if somebody upload a COA or flag that appears in an official web site. Thanks. Alakasam (talk) 22:34, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Difficult, in some countries COAs are PD no matter who created them - we have some license tags for COAs e.g. from Germany or Brazil. Normally if no special copyright is indicated with COM:L see Commons:Coats of Arms: Must be PD-old or PD-ineligible (too simple), must be self drawn, not taken from any website or scanned from a document.
This COAs are really difficult, if you know the country and checked COM:L or Commons:License tags for this country you should mark the image as {{subst:nsd}} if no source is indicated, {{subst:npd}} if you know that the image is taken from a (city)website or nominate it for deletion with a suspicion that it is taken from a website and that you think the copyright status of COAs from this country is unknown. --Martin H. (talk) 22:48, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your time. Alakasam (talk) 23:12, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Michael Jackson photo

It's this photo ok? [12]

Yes, I think so, good upload. --Martin H. (talk) 01:36, 28 July 2009 (UTC)


I work for a public relations agency and uploaded a picture taken by our photographer of Lucy Morillo MCHF President 2009. The file was deleted and the reason was copyright violation per watermark. Please help me to understand what I did incorrectly so I can reload the picture.Kdennis1 (talk) 01:45, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

The watermark and the information now given is inconsistent with the information given with the upload that says own work. Also the image contains a watermark saying "Gort Productions", the same watermark is in the image on I restor the image and ask you to follow the instructions I will add to your talkpage:
  • 1) Correct the authorship and source
  • 2) please explain the watermark thereby,
  • 3) forward a written permission from the copyright holder, presumably MCHF, to OTRS following the wording in Commons:Email templates. The licenses are cc-by-sa-3.0 and GFDL, of course you can select another license from Commons:License tags.
--Martin H. (talk) 01:57, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Files with copyright violation

Hello Martin H.,

Question #1: How long it takes to delete a file using speedydeletion from actual tag until actual deletion? The following files were tagged for speedydelete and copyvio but still appears in w:commons: Image:CNV.jpg, Image:Logo ssrp.jpg, Image:Logo dgi.jpg, Image:Logo sbp.jpg, Image:Cronograma ampliación 30-jun-09.jpg

All logos indicated are copyrighted and have the following condition of use:

CONDITONS OF USE All rights, including intellectual property, in these web sites belong to the Government of Panama. Users have the right to review the information free of charge in the public side of the web. Partial or total reproduction, be it by electronic or printed means, of the display of these pages for non commercial use by citing the source of the information by sending notice to by email to the webmaster of the institution or Use of the information for promotional ....of the information contained in these sites with written consent of the Government of Panama through the institution facilitation the information. The content of this site is public in nature y is available to citizens and government employees openly and freely, with the purpose to provide a wide distribution of the information about the Republic of Panama. Commercialization of any content, document or any other information of any portion of the site is prohibited.

Question #2: Is it clear in this "conditions of use" that the use of images including logos from these sites is prohibited in w:commons?

  1. it takes as long as someone delete them ;)
  2. Yes, the permission does not mention any terms required in Commons:Project scope#required licensing terms. The second part of the text is a Commons:Non-copyright restrictions, a Trademark or personality right. The Apple example in the linked site is very illustrative.
Some Logos may be to simple for copyright, so they are ok on Commons under {{PD-ineligible}} or {{PD-textlogo}}. Maybe File:Logo dgi.jpg fulfills this, but regrettably it is so small and the wrong file format. --Martin H. (talk) 04:09, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
  1. tks, do you mind deleting them now?
  2. All this logos are from panamanian goverment entities. Do you know how other governments manage the copyright of their entities logos? --Kiam-shim (talk) 15:17, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Ethiopian law

Hi, I noticed you are opposing a lot of copyrights against my pictures. I understand your concern but I feel the need to explain to you once again that those photographs (from a memorial) are legally in the public domain since it was seen on a public place and any name was visible. This means it is not protected by a copyright under Ethiopian law. Please, I hope you will understand since I plan to insert many more from the memorial. --Vob08 (talk) 28 july 2009

The deletion is based on Commons:Deletion requests/File:Endalkachew Mekonnen.JPG, since our last talk on my talkpage you not added the information: Where is the memorial placed and whats the name of the memorial? are the photographs shown outside the memorial? Are they permanently placed there? For me they appear as a scan, and the copyright of a scan depends on the original photo. --Martin H. (talk) 04:36, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Arilang say Hi

Hi, I shall upload files according to wiki commons rule, please give me times to add original sources other than the flicker account. Most of the files were originally uploaded from various Chinese web sites. Would not the {{:::PD-China}} cover all the copy right problem? Arilang Arilang talk 22:03, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Hi again, if you insist that I need to provide the exact date that those images were being published, then I am afraid that most of the 1940s and 1930s images have to be deleted, because there is no way that I can find out the date it was published. Can you suggest other ways (or other template) to save these images so that they can stay, for the benefit of other readers?

What about :PD-Japan-oldphoto, can I use this template? Arilang Arilang talk 00:08, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

If COM:L#Japan is fulfilled, yes. But you must still cite a source, for a japanese photo it is a photographer or organzation from Japan. --Martin H. (talk) 00:19, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Hi again, many Japanese images were from this site:,

I hope this can be considered a source. I have add :PD-Japan-oldphoto to all Japanese images, and hope everything OK. Arilang Arilang talk 02:18, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Hi, me again, please have a look:
Can this web site be considered as a source for Soong Mayling images? Arilang Arilang talk 03:03, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

No, nothing is ok. The images are still missing a source and author. I see your problem: You added random images from Google imagesearch and now you trie to keep them. Thats not (allways) possible. You should upload images with known source and author, from publications - like old books - you know the copyright status. You can search in Archives and old books and newspaper for such images. Regarding the MSN site: To find the source you should ask where the images come from. If I enter 蒋介石和宋美龄的结婚照 to Google I find the same image many many times, so it should be possible to find out where it comes from originally. --Martin H. (talk) 16:15, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Hi, me again. Please have a look at this web site:
Many images on this web site do have name of author and/or date of publication. If need be, I shall e-mail the webmaster and ask for more info, I think the webmaster is a historian. Arilang1234 Arilang talk 23:05, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
If you find images with good sources that are reasonable public domain according to the laws of the country of origin you can upload them here. I trust in your work. If your unsure or a website does not correctly give a source you should indeed write to website owner to ask for the source. Maybe you can get some help from Wikipedia projects with knowledge of ww2 history in Asia. --Martin H. (talk) 23:12, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

@ Martin, I have found out from an internet discussion forum, that many images on the Burma Road and 中國遠征軍 were taken by US Signal Corp, because back in 1940 the Chinese were too poor to even own a camera, let alone to learn how to process films. So I would proceed to add US Signal Corp to selected images, what you think? Arilang Arilang talk 05:35, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Hi me again. I have upload a file without using flicker, please have a look and point out any error. Thanks. File:1937 USS Augusta by Soren Swigart.jpg Ariang Arilang talk 09:30, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
You should try to source them to US Signalcorps sources. Many of this US sources are online and can be searched. E.g. the Library of Congress or the NARA hosts images from the Signal corps. Regarding the Søren Swigart photo: Swigart is a recent book author writing books on WWII, I dont think he is the photographer. Also the image is not PD-China if Swigart comes from the United States - but that doesnt matter if he is not the photographer. --Martin H. (talk) 11:53, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Delete This Photo & New Category

Hey Martin, could you please delete the photo listed below from my Wikimedia Commons photo gallery. My friend uploaded it by mistake with the rest of mine accidentally.


Thank You Martin!

Jaderocker (talk) 14:09, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

I forgot to mention, the Category: John Quinlan(wrestler) was just created. It is under the category American professional wrestlers. The problem is it is not listed under the letter "Q", it is under the symbol ) at the top of the page. It should be categorized under the letter "Q", no idea why it defaulted under the ) symbol. And lastly how can all the pro wrestling photos (all the photos exept the one marked as not categorized because I want that one deleted) in my gallery also be placed for viewing under this category? Right now it says empty..... "This category currently contains no pages or media".

Thank You Very Much Martin!

Jaderocker (talk) 16:46, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

I deleted the wrong image and fixed the sort key of Category:John Quinlan (wrestler). --Martin H. (talk) 16:55, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Thank You so much for correcting that and for your professionalism and promptness!

Jaderocker (talk) 17:02, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

File:Dale Chihuli installation in Missouri Botanical Garden - with bamboo.JPG

The problem here is that there's no way to separate the installation from the plants it exists among, without mowing down the plants. The artist shouldn't lose rights to derivative works of his 3D art works simply because there's some plants in amongst his art work. If the image were to include the artwork incidentally as a wider panorama of the botanical garden, I wouldn't have an objection. But in this case, the artwork is the focus and centerpiece of the derivative work and thus in the U.S. it is not free; the artist retains rights to derivative works. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:36, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Someone deleted it. I first not saw the glass vase and came to the wrong edit to revert your deletion request. --Martin H. (talk) 22:39, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

US Federal Agency Seal with non-copyright restriction?

Hello Martin H.

I was wondering about what you told me about non-copyright restrictions in some works, as logos, from governmental agencies. I just noticed that the Security and Exchange Commission Seal in commons has the following tag:


When I turned into SEC's website I noticed that they do have a restriction as follows:

  Please do not use the SEC seal or any of the other logos or artwork from this site. In addition, 
  please be advised that the EDGAR logo and the EDGAR and EDGARLink names are the SEC's registered 
  trademarks. You may not use them in connection with an EDGAR-related business without a license from the SEC.

Question: Does this file is qualified for removal from commons due to non-copyright restriction?

Regards --Kiam-shim (talk) 05:18, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Hi Kiam, of course yes, every Logo has possible trademark restrictions, you can not use it to promote your own business e.g. There could be a copyright restriction too if the Logo was not created by an employee of the U.S. Federal Government made during the course of this employee's official duties or as a work for hire for that U.S. Government agency. Thats a bit difficult, but it is unlikely that the USGov Agency not holds the copyright. Same applies e.g. for NASA Logos. The Logo of the US-FWS (Fish and Wildlife Service) was recently changed because someone took this restrictions and their wish not to use the Logo serious, after discussion Commons:Village pump/Archive/2009Apr#USFWS logo - breach of copyright. Thats only some hints, I cant say anything regarding the status of that Logo. --Martin H. (talk) 12:08, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
Tks Martin. I'll escalate this theme in Commons talk:Licensing if someone can tell me more about SEC's Seal status.

Picture of Genet

You recently deleted a picture of Jean Genet, claiming it was a copyright violation. I uploaded the image, which was a detail from an image in the public domain, but I am unable to locate the original now because the information page for my upload has gone. How do I access this information? DionysosProteus (talk) 13:50, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

The cropped image was deleted because the original File:Genet-koechler-vienna-1983.jpg was deleted as copyrigth violation. --Martin H. (talk) 13:55, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Three files

Hi Martin, can you take a look to this three files:

Thanks. Alakasam (talk) 15:57, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

File:Jonatha Brooke.jpg

Regarging File:Jonatha Brooke.jpg I have put a question on the page of the original uploader that seems to be the photographer. Looking at the photograph myself, I must admit that the quality is merely of a visitor and not of a professional photographer. Please read his answer here Regards, Davin7 (talk) 17:31, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

The problem is not the name but the term "non-commercial". The uploader even repeat his non-commercial permission on your en.wp talkpage. --Martin H. (talk) 17:39, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
In that case, you can delete it right away. Regards, Davin7 (talk) 18:55, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Thank you

For your attention, commom sense, discussion and help, to deleted the Wilhelm Reich image... The 30 pages/languages articles around Wikipedia salute you... You deleted it without any discussion...You don´t have the WORD!! --Lightwarrior2 (talk) 00:46, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

I did not delete it, I only nominated it for discussion, see Commons:Deletion requests/File:File-Wilhelm Reich 1934.jpg. --Martin H. (talk) 00:51, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

You have a thank-you note at here

Bsl-thank-you.svg--Kiam-shim (talk) 03:51, 1 August 2009 (UTC)


fyi, [[13]]. --Kiam-shim (talk) 14:24, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, I didn't note it so far. --Martin H. (talk) 20:38, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Jeune Afrique

I saw that you proposed File:Beji caid essebsi.jpg to deletion because of its publication in Jeune Afrique. FYI, File:Nouira sayah 1979.jpg is the other picture in the same case. For my knowledge, should the copyright belong to the photographer or to the magazin in these cases? Because photographers are probably Tunisians. Moumou82 (talk) 16:04, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Thats difficult, I tend to: I dont know. Maybe yes if the rule of the shorter time applies for France/Tunisia and it was not a work for hire or something similar for French copyright? Maybe the place of first publication or a simultaneous publication is also important. You should ask this question at the deletion request, I cant answer it. --Martin H. (talk) 20:37, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Pff (Mike08)

Sabes la razon por la que he creado multiples cuentas en Commons, por que tu nadamas me estas molestando, yo nunca te molesto a ti, tu no me dejas colaborar a gusto en Commons, ni tampoco en Wikipedia, ademas, yo subo fotos de Flick y tu me las borras, yo nunca borro las tuyas, ademas pongo la informacion necesaria y todo lo que se necesita y aun asi las borras. Si no te gusta lo que subo, solo dimelo, por que si te pones a ver, donde coloco las fotos que subo si son necesarias. Bueno entonces si quieres me pones paso por paso como subir una foto, a ver si asi quedas conforme.


I answered on your talkpage. --Martin H. (talk) 20:37, 1 August 2009 (UTC)