User talk:Ramaksoud2000

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


Colorado State Capitol plaque images - speedy deletion probably not appropriate[edit]

Hi there! I'm surprised that you did a speedy deletion on my photos of several plaques around the Colorado State Capitol. It seems to me that a regular deletion request might be more suitable, as copyright status of the plaques appeared somewhat unclear. They may have been 'PD-US-no notice', 'PD-US-1978-89', or 'PD-US-not renewed', because most plaques are never formally copyrighted. Since the status is not really clear, regular deletion would have been appropriate, and would have given us a chance to try to figure it out. cheers and best wishes for the holidays, Daderot (talk) 12:11, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Ah yes. A DR would have been the best choice. My apologies. Most of them are DRs now. I know though that before I tagged it, I checked the date and creator on all of them to see if it was public domain. In the U.S., there is no freedom of panorama for markers and signs like this. Thanks for being courteous. Ramaksoud2000 (talk) 14:08, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
Thank you for going through my images and nominating as many deletions as possible. with best wishes, Daderot (talk) 02:00, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
Sorry if you took this personally Daderot. I did not look at the uploader when going through the category. You just seem to have taken several pictures of markers. You asked for the justification for why the markers are copyrighted on all of the discussions, and I have replied on all of them. Ramaksoud2000 (talk) 02:24, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
Hello again. I've come to the conclusion that you are right. At first I had thought you were indiscriminate in your deletions, but after looking through the plaques that you have marked for deletion, I see that you have good reason for each one. My apologies for getting upset at you. Best wishes for the holidays, Daderot (talk) 10:46, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
No worries. Happy holidays to you too. Ramaksoud2000 (talk) 22:08, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

FP Promotion[edit]

This image has been promoted to Featured picture!

The image File:Michael Collins "Free State Demonstration" March 13, 1922.jpg, that you nominated on Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Michael Collins "Free State Demonstration" March 13, 1922.jpg has been promoted. Thank you for your contribution. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so.


/FPCBot (talk) 22:01, 16 December 2013 (UTC)


Since you mentioned bringing the discussion to your talk page, I'm bringing it here. Users talk of freedom of panorama, originality, March 1989. They expect me to read articles and then understand what the users are talking about. The article on originality shows around a dozen photos that are approved, one that isn't approved but is still on wikimedia commons. I've been uploading photos to commons since March 2012 and all of a sudden people are having a problem with signs I've uploaded. I've read others having problems with sign photos. 3 users gang up on me. You guys wonder why users become uncivil? Please explain why each and every photo has been deleted? Thank you.

Imagine there is a CNN article. That article is copyrighted. Let's say CNN prints it out and tapes it on a pole outside their location. If you went and took a picture of it, those text and pictures in the article are still copyrighted, and it would be copyright infringement to redistribute them without permission from the copyright holder, even if you took a picture. This applies to non-text things has well. Some countries have freedom of panorama, which allows you take photos of, and distribute those photos of things displayed in public places. The U.S. only has this freedom for buildings (which are copyrighted if they were completed after 1990). In short, in some countries, you can take photos of copyrighted things, and redistribute those photos of copyrighted things permanently displayed in public places, however, the U.S. only allows that for buildings. March 1989 and originality refer to whether or not something is copyrighted. After March 1989, neither a copyright notice nor registration with The Copyright Office is required for copyright protection. After March 1989, copyright protection is automatic under the w:Berne Convention and no display of a copyright notice or registration is needed to have copyright protection for something. Originality refers to whether or not something is copyrightable at all. You cannot copyright a letter or a simple shape for example. To copyright something, it must posses a minimum degree of creativity. Many signs are simple words or short phrases and cannot be copyrighted. COM:Threshold of originality is a guide to help determine whether something is original enough to be copyrighted. File:Android robot.svg, the file you are talking about, is original enough to be copyrighted, but the creator, Google, licensed it under a free license, which allows it to be used. If Google did not license it under a free license, then it could not be uploaded because it is above the threshold of originality. Ramaksoud2000 (talk) 19:54, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
Also, please do not reupload the files that were deleted as you did at File:Little League Southeastern Region Headquarters sign.JPG. Ramaksoud2000 (talk) 20:00, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
So buildings in the US built after 1989 are copyrighted and cannot be photographed? --Mjrmtg (talk) 02:20, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
COM:FOP#United_States says pictures taken from a public place are OK. For buildings completed before December 1, 1990, it doesn't matter if it was taken from a public place or not. Ramaksoud2000 (talk) 02:37, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
How many words/short phrases on a sign before it is copyrighted? --Mjrmtg (talk) 02:25, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
That is subjective as the U.S. is a common law country, however, this and this document offers some explanation and generally, complete sentences should be regarded as copyrighted. Ramaksoud2000 (talk) 02:37, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Galaxy Mini 2 photo[edit]

Hello! hey whats wrong with my photo of the Samsung Galaxy Mini 2? It`s my own work, and the software is the stock Samsung-Android, including the launcher.

If there any problem with that, can you tell me how to solve it?

I have replied at Commons:Deletion requests/File:GT-S6500L.jpg. Ramaksoud2000 (talk) 06:44, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

File:Paoli marker detail.jpg[edit]

I'm very sorry for badly misunderstanding you, and sorry too for overreacting. I thought you were simply renominating it because you didn't like the first closure, knowing fully-well about the publication stuff. Nyttend (talk) 03:11, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

No worries. I could have clarified more in the nomination. Ramaksoud2000 (talk) 05:07, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Speedy deletion[edit]

Don't problem. I cropped a previously uploaded file. You can delete it if the file doesn't have a compatible license. --Pwnagic (talk) 03:39, 5 January 2014 (UTC)


You left me a note about images of plaques in Monmouths. This debate has been had before with ref to plaques in Coventry. Do look back through the archives as this is a precedent. I imagine it might stem from their being no image to attract a copyright. Victuallers (talk) 19:52, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

I have replied at Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Blue plaques in Monmouth in order not to fragment the discussion. Ramaksoud2000 (talk) 21:02, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Great action![edit]

Sorry for my poor english: Please read: Commons:WikiProject Public Domain/German stamps review --Nightflyer (talk) 22:48, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

AWM photos[edit]

Hi, I don't understand the problem, the photos you marked for deletion were taken by an Australian from an Australian ship: "During his Korean War service from 31 August 1951 to 22 February 1952, R29942 Chief Radio Electrician Alan Wallace White RAN (Royal Australian Navy) was an authorised photographer on board the Majestic class light aircraft carrier HMAS Sydney III (R17)." The copyright was always with the AWM. Why should it be copyrighted in the U.S.? URAA says: "Works not copyrightable in the US are not affected." Cheers Cobatfor (talk) 23:33, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Under the Berne Convention, works copyrighted in their countries of origin are to be recognized internationally. This work is copyrightable in the U.S. That sentence refers to things that would not be copyrightable if they were originally from the U.S. I've posted this reply on the two nomination pages. Ramaksoud2000 (talk) 23:36, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
I still don't see the problem, an Australian official photographer took the photos and the copyright was always with the Commonwealth of Australia and same released the photos into the public domain. Why does PD-Australia then exist? Cobatfor (talk) 23:42, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
Works on Commons must be free in both the source country and the U.S. If you read COM:URAA, you will see that works that were not in the public domain in the source country on the URAA date are copyrighted in the U.S. Ramaksoud2000 (talk) 23:47, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
An who has the copyright in the U.S.?Cobatfor (talk) 23:56, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
The government of Australia does. Australia did not release it into the public domain. Its copyright merely expired in Australia. Copyright laws are different in every country. Some countries apply the rule of shorter term but the U.S. does not. Ramaksoud2000 (talk) 23:58, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
This is a little weird. Australia does not recognize the copyright in its own country but would claim copyright on the same work in the U.S.?!? Why? Cobatfor (talk) 00:05, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
Legally, these works are not copyrighted in Australia. They are copyrighted in the U.S. though. Who the copyright holder is does not matter. Ramaksoud2000 (talk) 00:07, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
As not being a lawyer (for heaven's sake, NOT), this is too weird for me. Sic transit gloria mundi! Cobatfor (talk) 00:13, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

WM answer (2014-01-21, 22:53 GMT): "Thank you for your email and my apologies for the delay. In answer to your question the images in our collection all fall under Australian copyright. However from reading the creative commons information copyright expired – public domain is recognised internationally. When you are looking at our images if you click on them, they will all have a copyright status under the image which you can click on for more information eg -
If you are looking at our images and questioning the copyright status with the potential of reproducing them for your own commercial or public project then regardless of the copyright status you will need to pay the Memorial a User fee. More information on user fees can be found here -
If you have any further questions please don’t hesitate to contact me.
Kind regards,
Kat Circuitt
eSales | Retail & Online Sales | t 02 6243 4360 | f 02 6243 4469
Australian War Memorial | GPO Box 345 Canberra ACT 2601 |" Cobatfor (talk) 23:37, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

I've replied at Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Cobatfor. Ramaksoud2000 (talk) 01:23, 22 January 2014 (UTC)



I'd like to launch the debate for the deletion of this picture :

Could you please launch this or explain me how to launch this ? The rationale is the same as here : Commons:Deletion requests/File:Ink flag.jpg
Thx, Pluto2012 (talk) 18:22, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Pluto2012, on the left side of your screen, in the navigation bar under "Tools", there should be a "Nominate for deletion" button when you are on the file page that will complete the complicated process automatically for you. I have nominated this file for you. Ramaksoud2000 (talk) 17:34, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
Thank you for your help. Pluto2012 (talk) 20:03, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

I do not understand why the photo is nominated to be deleted. The stated reason is: "COM:URAA problem. Created in 1948 (during the Siege of Jerusalem) so it became PD in Israel in 1999, after the URAA date of 1996. Copyrighted until 95 years after publication, which appears to be at least 1952. This can be undeleted in 2048".

*Why 95 years?

How come that an Israeli photo, that his copyright expired on 1999, is still copyrighted elsewhere? thanks Ykantor (talk) 18:17, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Please read COM:URAA first. 95 years after publication is the U.S. copyright term. The URAA restored copyrights on foreign works in the U.S. if they were copyrighted on the URAA date. The U.S. does not use the rule of the shorter term. Ramaksoud2000 (talk) 18:20, 20 January 2014 (UTC)


Hi, I see the deletion discussion has been closed, with no consensus to delete. Just wondering if you heard anything useful from the Wikimedia legal folks. Thanks! ReverendWayne (talk) 15:43, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

No, sorry. They have not replied at all. I guess they decided not to contribute. Ramaksoud2000 (talk) 19:36, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

File:Michael Collins "Free State Demonstration" March 13, 1922.jpg[edit]

Commons-emblem-issue.svg File:Michael Collins "Free State Demonstration" March 13, 1922.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 | বাংলা | Беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | Català | Čeština | Dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | Zazaki | Ελληνικά | English | Esperanto | Español | Eesti | فارسی | Suomi | Français | Galego | עברית | Magyar | Bahasa Indonesia | Íslenska | Italiano | 日本語 | 한국어 | Македонски | മലയാളം | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | Norsk nynorsk | Norsk bokmål | Occitan | Polski | Português | Português do Brasil | Română | Русский | Slovenčina | Slovenščina | Српски / srpski | Svenska | Türkçe | українська | Tiếng Việt | 中文 | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−

Ww2censor (talk) 23:01, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/Template:PD-US-record[edit]

Hello, since you were a participant in the above Deletion discussion I wanted to make sure you were informed of the new Wikilegal report at meta:Wikilegal/Copyright Status of Sound Recordings Fixed Prior to February 15 1972 related to this issue. Wikilegal left a notice on Template talk:PD-US-record saying "Wikilegal is a place for the community to engage in a discourse on legal issues the projects face. Although made by Foundation legal staff or interns, these posts are not intended as legal advice, but they are an opportunity for inquiry and discussion. See meta:Wikilegal for more." -- Green Cardamom (talk) 19:46, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

File:John Denver memorial plaque.jpg[edit]

Hi Ramaksoud2000: This is not so much an appeal of a deletion as a point of future reference for me....and please pardon the delay. Was this because of a freedom of panorama issue, or because you perceived that I took it from the Web, or for another reason entirely? I photographed the image myself at the site. After uploading, I realized it nearly duplicated another image already in use on enwiki. Thanks so much. Barte1 (talk) 06:58, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Hi. I don't remember the specifics, but it was a freedom of panorama issue. Looking online, I see that it is in the U.S., which does not have freedom of panorama. The text on the plaque is copyrighted and can't be reproduced. If you have any other questions, please ask. Ramaksoud2000 (talk) 17:55, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
Got it. I understand the FOP principle but didn't realize it applied to plaques. Thanks. If no objection, I'm going to copy this exchange to my Talk page. As it stands, the template sounds as if I've been uploading material from the Web. Barte1 (talk) 00:35, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
Sure. No problem. Ramaksoud2000 (talk) 13:36, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

OTRS permissions queues[edit]

Hello Ramaksoud2000. You are receiving this message as a license reviewer. As you know, OTRS processes a large amount of tickets relating to image releases (called "permissions"). As a license reviewer, you may have the skills necessary to contribute to this team. If you are interested in learning more about OTRS or to volunteer please visit Meta-Wiki. Tell your friends! Thank you. Rjd0060 18:51, 1 March 2015 (UTC)