|(P.S. Would you like to provide feedback on this message?)|
Zzyzx11 06:32, 15 December 2006 (UTC)Hello, and thank your for sharing your files with Commons. There seems to be a problem regarding the description and or licensing of this particular file. Could you please resolve these problems, which are described on the page linked in above? Thank you. --
- For Image:Australia v India.jpg, you have to edit that page and add the licence manually. See Commons:Copyright tags for a list of those tags.
- As for the other images that you uploaded from other Flickr users, as long as they change the licence there to "Creative Commons Attribution 2.0" instead of "Attribution-NonCommercial 2.0", they can stay. Thanks. Zzyzx11 23:22, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
- But in the future, please do not upload Flickr images "Attribution-NonCommercial 2.0" until the users there change it. Thanks. Zzyzx11 23:26, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
|Pay attention to copyright||Image:World Cup Trophy.jpg has been marked as a copyright violation. The Wikimedia Commons only accepts free content, that is, images and other media files that can be used by anyone, for any purpose. For details on what is acceptable, please read Commons:Licensing. You can ask questions about Commons policies in Commons:Help desk.
The file you added will soon be deleted. If you believe this image is not a copyright violation, please explain why on the image description page.
Benn Newman 21:44, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
- how am i suppose to find if its copyrighted or not when its not? something doesn't have information about it when it doesn't exist. copyright for that trophy doesn't exist and any information about its copyright cant be found anywhere because its not copyrighted. If it is prove it. It's not like what's not copyrighted, it's what is copyrighted.Ricky212 05:56, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
- US (and International) law declares any work is copyrighted for 70 years after the creators death unless copyright is renewed.
- Commons copyright policy requires anything uploaded to be with a free license. Unless you can prove it, which you say you can't. The image cant exist on commons otherwise. As the uploader it is your responsibility to provide this copyright info, not mine.
- --Cat out 06:04, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
It wasn't made or thought of in the US, it was in the UK and the copyright for the uk states that the person that thought of it automatically has copyright but the trophy that the picture is taken from is a replica and in the UK copyright it says the inventor(person who thought of it) has copyright as long as its not been copied from existing work, which the replica is because its been copied from the original one, simple as. "Once in physical form, as long as it is an original work (in the sense of not having been copied from an existing work, rather than in the sense of being novel or unique), copyright in that work is automatically vested in (i.e. owned by) the person who put the concept into material form." Ricky212 07:02, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
- Who gives away this award? You? Copyright of 2d pictures of 3d objects belong to the owner of the 3d object. You would be right if the cup was not the center of attention. --Cat out 08:33, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
- no i'm right because the replica doesn't have copyright because its a copied from existing work. have a nice day. Ricky212 23:52, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
so why cant we get other people's thought on it like in the normal deletion process because its not a clear case. I'm not going to upload it but I want it to be voted on like in the deletion process because there's points to be taken. It's not dictatorship here in wikimedia, and your not a dictator to take that different approach; it's democracy here in wikimedia.Ricky212 23:52, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
- Clear cut copyright violations can be speedy deleted w/o discussion which this clearly is. Wikimedia is neither a dictatorship nor a democracy. We simply are not a government. Deletion was as per: COM:DEL#Other_deletion_procedures #2.
- If you'd like to complain, feel free to do so at Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/Disputes and other admins may review the case
- --Cat out 11:08, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
re: flick review
Are you the same person who uses the Rick212 account on Flickr? I ask because of this link. It defeats the purpose of a Flickr review if I am trying to review your own Flickr images here that you also uploaded here on Commons too, right? Zzyzx11 02:23, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
- Ok, then please add the actual author and source of those images. Is it your own work or the work of someone else? Zzyzx11 02:45, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
Tip: Categorizing images
Thanks a lot for contributing to the Wikimedia Commons! Here's a tip to make your uploads more useful: Why not add some categories to describe them? This will help more people to find and use them.
1) If you're using the UploadWizard, you can add categories to each file when you describe it. Just click "more options" for the file and add the categories which make sense:
2) You can also pick the file from your list of uploads, edit the file description page, and manually add the category code at the end of the page.
- [[Category:Category name]]
For example, if you are uploading a diagram showing the orbits of comets, you add the following code:
- [[Category:Astronomical diagrams]]
When picking categories, try to choose a specific category ("Astronomical diagrams") over a generic one ("Illustrations").Thanks again for your uploads! More information about categorization can be found in Commons:Categories, and don't hesitate to leave a note on the help desk.
BotMultichillT 06:15, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
- Image:Ashraful.jpg was uncategorized on 27 September 2009.