User talk:Thuresson/Archive1

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

Halibutt license[edit]

Please note that my copyright tag doesn't have to be compatible with GFDL (it is, but it doesn't have to). I demand that my contributions be correctly attributed - which is a modification of standard GFDL 1.2 rules - and that's what my the tag says. Halibutt 16:43, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)


Jag har anmält tre av de bilder du laddat upp till Commons:Deletion requests. Thuresson 03:09, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Det är bra att du håller reda på mig...:) brukar det vara trubbel med US Gov-bilder? Huggorm 13:31, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Swedish government pictures[edit]

Regarding your message: Thankyour for uploading images to WikiCommons. However, I would like to point out, and I think you are well aware of this, that these images may only be used under the term of the present government, which means no later than October 2006. That is why these images are not suitable to transfer to WikiCommons. [1]

As you can probably see on the corresponding description pages I am aware of that, though I don't see (and didn't find) why those images should not be uploaded to WikiCommons. Right now, I only transfered pictures which were used on more than one Wikipedia. This not only simplifies using the same picture from several locations, but also simplifies removing (or replacing) it when necessary. I would rather propose a new copyright tag and category which represent the licensing status of these photos—as it seems to exist in the Swedish Wikipedia, though I couldn't fully translate the message… ;) --Fschoenm 01:04, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

As I understand, Wikicommons is a depository for images and, as such, a place for longterm storage. All images must be either PD or GFDL and it seems that these images are neither. If you want to go through with this I suggest the following template:
This image of a Swedish cabinet minister comes from the official web site of the Swedish government [2]. They may be used freely during the cabinet's term of office but not later than October 2006. Publishing must always be accompanied with the name of the photographer. See the offficial image gallery [3] for details.
Thuresson 01:31, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)
As a proposal, I created User:Fschoenm/Template:SwedishGovernmentCopyright. Do you know if anyone may create new copyright tags or do they have to be discussed somewhere first? --Fschoenm 01:57, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)
I assume that anybody can create templates without asking somebody for permission. You can of course use the Commons:Community Portal to announce it. Thuresson 03:24, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)


Hi, thanks for giving notice, I wasn't aware that there was a problem with these images. However, I read a bit further - it seems that Commons:Bad sources is a bit outdated in that respect and the current policy is that those images from stock.xchng which carry an no usage restrictions note (like the one I uploaded) are ok. See Commons:Stock.xchng images and the recent vote on this issue. regards, High on a tree 09:44, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, I wasn't aware of the extra text. Well, as long as you know what you're doing, good luck!. Thuresson 09:47, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)


Please visit the page , they saw Permitida su reproducción en conformidad al artículo 38 de la Ley 17.336 sobre Propiedad Intelectual. in english The material this site can be reproduced accordance with Article 38 of the Chilean Law 17.336 on Copyright. In chile don’t have fair use, this are used whit page expressly it allows it(excuse me I don’t speak english)

Thank you. The web page you refer to does not claim that the images are public domain or GFDL, hence they should be deleted. Thuresson 01:42, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)


You are now an admin here on Commons. Congratulations! villy 11:00, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)


I kindly refer You to en:Template talk:Europe.

Image licenses[edit] claim that "you may use the maps for personal or commercial purposes" but also claim that the user may not "sell the maps". That sounds like noncommercial use only.

Thuresson 03:24, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps it's "You may use the maps for personal or commercial purposes" quoted from the EULA link I provided on the image page! DoubleBlue (Talk) 03:56, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

What is your source for claiming that anybody can use this image for any purpose? Thuresson 03:24, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC) Promotional use DoubleBlue (Talk) 03:56, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Thank you. "Promotional use" is not good enough for Commons. Thuresson 04:05, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
CFL holds the copyright but releases it for any use because it gives them promotion. This image was used on wikinews for an article about the event. Perhaps I don't know the precise tag but it is some form of copyrighted(free use). Thanks DoubleBlue (Talk) 04:13, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I can't find any licens info whatsoever on the CFL website. Generally speaking, a web site like Wikipedia for example, may publish some materials using a "fair use" claim in the US copyright law. However, the gods that be have decided not to allow the publishing of such material on Commons. Thuresson 04:36, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Image:Lang en.png[edit]

You asked me what the difference is between Image:Lang en.png and Image:Uk flag 300.png, the answer is they are identical apart from the name. I made it to demonstrate a way to have templates choose a flag automatically, without the editor having to type it out. After a week or so I will mark it for deletion. -Wikibob 17:13, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Commons:Untagged images[edit]

I saw that you deal a lot with deletion request, so you may be interested in Commons:Untagged images it contains a list of more than 3000 images that have no copyright info. I generated the list from the latest dump. Maybe you could help to clean that up, or tell others to have a look? Thanks. -- Duesentrieb 12:19, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Image:Dom von helsinki.jpg[edit]

Thnak you for your info! Certainly you are right. I have trusted secretlondon and uploaded it here - see talk on del requests. To err is a human thing, they say...

IMHO it would be great to convince pixelquelle to soften their licence (as far as I know Wiki is not the databank mentioned there, however pics used here may be used somewhere else afterwards). If I am wrong, please correct me. I think a proper template could be used then to mark these pictures, informing about their courtuasy and licence.

Once again sorry for the trouble. Kind regards, and Hjärtliga Hälsingar! :) Aegis Maelstrom 10:27, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

No problem at all. I wish they would change their license but perhaps their suppliers wouldn't accept that. In this case the problem with the license is no problem since Commons have other images of the cathedral of Helsinki, and I think this one is better, Image:Helsinki Cathedral in July 2004.jpg. Thuresson 14:43, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)


Hello again! I've found this pic uploaded - can you take a look on licence statements on the source website? Once again non-commercial use only... It's definitely not a PD. Can we use it on Wikipedias?

Best regards, Aegis Maelstrom 22:29, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

It seems that they have found this picture "somewhere" on the internet and "believe" it is in the public domain [4]. Photos of statuettes enter the public domain 70 years after the death of the photographer so it isn't obviously PD. Thuresson 23:23, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Image:Tex edhistorica001.jpg[edit]


Could you please tell me why you marked this image to be deleted? It is a photo made from a magazine, no scan of the cover. The german and portuguese Wikipedias, which do not accept fair use images, accept such kind of images, as it is a photo of a 3D object and no 2D scanning of a cover or whatsoever. The author released his photo in GFDL, so I do not understand why the image must be deleted.

We were told in Commons:

No, a simple reproduction does not give you any rights to the material, so you can't put it under the GFDL. That includes screenshots, scans and reproductive photography. However, if you would show the cd-box as an object (especially from an angle) in some context, it would be probably alright. In short: if you copy an image, by whatever means, it's not yours. There's alsway a gray zone, however...

Compare with Image:Lucky luke1.JPG, please.

Thank you for your attention. Marcelo Schlindwein 16:35, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

This is simply a photograph of a (presumably) copyrighted magazine. There is no context, like a person reading the magazine. The photo as it looks now is hardly different from scanning the cover in i a computer scanner. There is a gray zone but this photo is not in it, it's a copyright infringement. Ask yourself, do you think you could use this photo as cover for a magazine you yourself published?
Please tell me which scanner can scan an image in this way and I buy it right now... It is clearly a photo of an object, and I think you are over reacting. What about the comparison with Image:Lucky luke1.JPG?? In your point of view, is it a copyright infringement, because it does not have a context??
Also, this photo is not listed for deletion, it is for now only tagged as a possible copyright violation. Thuresson 19:15, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Yes, it is: The tag says As the commons allows only for "free" images, the image will be deleted..


I put the translation of the permission to english there. Campani 17:44, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Missing information in my images[edit]

As you asked for, I put the original URL for all my images, except for Image:Tony Rominger.jpg. I don't know what's missing in that image, as it's a scan of a photograph of mine. Please excuse my bad English. --Hugo López 13:26, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

My Photo[edit]

I took out the restriction that it only be used in matters relating to me, is that better? Nickshanks 10:00, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Thor Heyerdahl[edit]

Why was the image of Thor Heyerdahl deleted? It was marked as PD-USGov at en:... Ausir 13:01, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

It was listed at Commons:Deletion requests for two weeks, why didn't you object? . It was taken from a NASA website and there was no claim on the web site that all images were public domain. Thuresson 13:05, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)


Hej Thure! Jag såg att dom som har engelska som modersmål har en speciell mall för det. Så jag tyckte att vi inte skall vara sämre, eller hur :) Så jag fixade denna Template:User sv, (den engeska är likadan Template:User en). Släng in den på nicksidan i stället för "sv 3" om du vill? Jag gorde det på min sida. // Solkoll 16:36, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Jag såg att en del av den tyska och engelska proffsen hade små gröna rutor men "så lite tid, så mycket att göra"... Thuresson 16:41, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Den tyska hade jag missat, men vilken fullträff! Meningen som jag formulerade för den svenska mallen är identisk med den på den tyska mallen, inte ett ord skiljer :) // Solkoll 17:00, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

image: peinture JFS[edit]

Je suis surpris de voir cette image disparaître de l'article relatif à Veules les Roses. En effet, je possède ce tableau. Il m'appartient et je l'ai acheté à un artiste-peintre qui est , aussi, un excellent ami. Aussi, je remets cette image. Merci.

"I am surprised to see this article disappearing from the article about Veules les Roses. I own this painting, I bought it from a painter who is an excellent friend. Thus, I reinsert this image." User:Gegeours

Note: We're trying on fr: to explain to this users that his beliefs on copyright are erroneous. David.Monniaux 11:48, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Yes, I have been following the discussions at Le Bistro with great interest. Thuresson 11:52, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Book covers[edit]

Why am I not allowed to upload a self-made photograph of a book that I own?

All rights to Dungeons & Dragons are owned by the american company Hasbro. Even if you own a gaming manual from them the laws of copyright do not allow you to distribute photographs of said manual. Thuresson 05:11, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Acctually D&D is owned by Wizards of the Coast (after it was bought from TSR).-- 00:55, 1 December 2005 (UTC)



I'm an admin on the french wikipédia. We received a message from Gegeours who would like to talk about the current problem with him on commons. (He can't do it here rigth now as he is blocked)

Could you speak with him on his user page of the french wikipedia (fr:User:Gegeours)? Thank you. I don't know precisely what happened, if he speaks english or not. But anyway I think this can be easily sorted out.

If he does not understand english, we'll find somebody to do the necessary translation - feel free to use english.

Anyway, he told us that he have now understood the point and he will soon meet with the painter of the picture he owns to ask for an authorisation.

Thank you in advance.

Jyp 08:43, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC) (doing the messenger, and trying to help)

Thank you for your answer. I have translated it. Jyp 09:33, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Steve Hawking[edit]

The picture can be found at, but i cropped it, so i changed the name. -- Stahlkocher 08:35, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Image:Douglas Adams by Jill Furmanovsky dna3b.jpg[edit]

Did you found an usage restriction? -- Stahlkocher 09:11, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Did you find a clear claim of PD, GFLD or similar? Thuresson 09:12, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
It is a press foto for distribution and promotion. This means: It is free for commercial use in print, internet and CD/DVD-Media. What else do you want? -- Stahlkocher 09:40, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
That's your interpretation. Where does it say "It is free for commercial use in print, internet and CD/DVD-Media"? WikiCommons is not press. Thuresson 09:45, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Turkmenistan coa.jpg license[edit]

I have copied Image:Turkmenistan coa.jpg from en:Image:Gerb.jpg. It is stated there that "This image depicts a seal, an emblem, a coat of arms or a crest. It may be ineligible for copyright or in the public domain. In other cases, it is believed that these images may be exhibited on Wikipedia under the fair use provision of United States copyright law." I don't know if this may prevent the image to be deleted. I should have mentionned it anyway. — Poulpy 10:46, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

WikiCommons do not allow images under the fair use provision. I can ignore it for now but its probable that somebody else will delete it very soon. Thuresson


Hi! I uploaded from EN.Wikipedia. Campani 15:44, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Better Safe Than Sorry?[edit]

Is it better to err on the side of inclusion when creating categories for an image? For example my image Image:BeardedManinglassesandPlaidShirt.jpg is currently included in entries for "Beard," "Plaid," "Glasses" and "Goatee" as I think it is applicable for all of them. I'm just afraid I'm over-doing it. Please advise. Pacian 00:39, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The point is that an image should be as easy to find as possible. You could also include categories, e.g. add Category:Beards to your image and what else you find relevant. You may have to look around for which categories or article names are available first though. As long as it is relevant to the image I don't see any problem. Thuresson 01:14, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Free right of use[edit]

Hi Thuresson.

Thanks for your comment on the image I just uploaded on my page about SAFA. I am a teacher and work for SAFA, the educational institution represented by the logo i uploaded. The logo is freely downloadable from

R:Images without a free license[edit]

Thuresson,thanks for your notification about the status of these images. Since I got no response from the original author after sending him email, I guess they should be removed from the Commons. Best, --Wdshu 05:46, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Tarja Halonen[edit]

Hi, as I wrote in the commentary, I had duly asked the chancellery of the Finnish presidency which one of the many pictures they exhibit could been put in the Wikipedia as being public domain. By date of 24 may 2004 they answered in an e-mail that I could use this picture. I hope every thing is o.k. by now. Best wishes, Christian Seidl -- 09:42, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Well, the copyright of almost all of the pictures on the President's website are of the photographers - all but the one I put in my article. I described them exactly what I intended to do with the pic and they gave me the explicit permission to do so. -- 17:10, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)


Images:Anti-tank rifle wz 35.jpg,Rifle wz.38M.jpg,Polish rifle wz 1960.jpg ,Pistolet P-83 ,Submachine gun Bechowiec.jpg wyt\u0142umiony.jpg ,PM wz 63 2.jpg ,PM wz 63 2.jpg ,PM wz 63.jpg ,SWD.jpg ,Johnson Type R.jpg ,RPG2 and PG2.jpg ,RPKwz1961.jpg ,RPK-74.jpg ,Hotchkiss wz 14.jpg ,PPD 40.jpg ,PPD 34.jpg ,RPD wz.44.jpg ,Fiat Revelli mod.14.jpg ,G11 (USA ACR).jpg ,DSzK38.jpg are scans from military magazins "Żołnierz Polski", "Polska Zbrojna", "Wojskowy Przegląd Techniczny" from years 1984-92. --Nemo5576 09:51, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)


Hello there. I get most of my pictures from Wikipedia-english, so for most of them I barely known the sources. I don't known how this is going to affect my contributions. thanks. Messhermit 03:35, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Image:Mana Pools Zimbabwe.jpg[edit]

Hello from France! It comes from : But it needs more information about the author. Maybe have we to delete it. I don't no, maybe must we ask in the english wikipédia to be sure ? Thanks to be vigilent. Have a good day. petrus 12:39, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

About Copyvio[edit]

Hello once again. I understand about the copyvios, and I will work to rectify that mistake. I will contact the webmaster of those pages were I get the articles and work if they can release them under a fair licence. Well, about the one of Ortega, I only state that assuming that the picture was in that position. Anyways. thanks for the advice. Messhermit 03:10, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

possibly unfree tag[edit]

The needed info for Image:ApartheidSignEnglishAfrikaans.jpg is at en.wp, where I asked the photographer for the original. You could've just asked me on my talk page, and I'd have happily supplied it for you, instead of probably missing the notice and having the image unnecessarily deleted. The image had the link back to en.wp exactly for that purpose. Dewet 14:25, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Thank you. Your image was nowhere near to get deleted, then you would have been notified well in advance. Thuresson 17:19, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Herzog Image[edit]

Hi Thuresson!,

I´m Espercius. I´ve just put the web link where I found this image in the Werner Herzog´s image page. I forgot to put in because it´s the first time that I work in Commons. Sorry!!.

I think that this image it´s Public Domain and it hasn´t any copyright. I´m writing the article of Werner Herzog in the Wikipedia in Spanish and I need to put this photo.



Herzog image!!![edit]

Hi again Thuresson!. I´m Espercius. I put the URL where I found this photo many days ago and I leave here a message for you, but I didn´t receive any response from you. I put the URL, this is not enough?. In the image article continues the advise of image suspicious. I´m sure that the image is public domain. Please, leave me a message in My talk. Thank you, --Espercius 18:37, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

Ehrichman Photo[edit]

Hey, thanks for converting and moving the photo, sooner or later I'm going to get around to moving the ones I uploaded from my various president projects. Appreciate the help. --Wgfinley 18:44, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The copyright of subway map does not belong to SL at all![edit]

How do you know it? I can't find any symbol of copyright or announce in the free map. Please tell me where do you find the copyright agreement of this map. Thank you!

If you have not the free map, you can get one from SL center easily, otherwise I can mail you the copy one. Please show me the mark of copyright. Is it ok?--3dball 16:14, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Almost all the nations of the world have adopted the Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works. In these countries there is no requirement for adding "copyright" or © to an intellectual work, all works are protected by default. Hence, there is no need to look for this on the underground map in question, rather, what you should look for are the words "public domain", "copyfree" or similar. They were not present on the map and neither are they mentioned on the SL web page ( Since WikiCommons do not allow users to upload protected works, your map was deleted. You may of course draw your own map of the Stockholm underground system and upload that. Thuresson 20:07, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Pictures taken during the USSR[edit]

Hello, this is Messhermit once again. Before uploading a picture, I took some time to research for its copyright status, but I'm stuck in a question: Some pictures of a former President of Georgia were taken during the years of the USSR (with Georgia as a constituent republic), and others when the country was already independent. All of them don't have any official holder (at least it appears to be like that). My question is, if those pictures (in black and White) apply for the tag of "works published in the USSR before 1973". Please gave and advice. Thanks Messhermit 22:03, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Pictures by soviet photographers taken before 1973 are not protected by copyright. If that is the case, it is my understanding that you may upload them to WikiCommons. You may use the template Template:PD-Soviet by adding {{PD-Soviet}} to these images.
For pictures taken after 1973 the normal rules apply. If you claim that a picture is public domain you must also write why it is public domain. If you are looking for public domain images of Eduard Shevardnadze, I suggest these images from the US military: www.defenselink. Thuresson 06:19, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

Category:United States actors[edit]

I reverted your edits, because there doesn't seem to be agreement to carry them out. See Commons:Deletion requests.

James F. (talk) 12:30, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

Sony qrio[edit]

According to google image search, the picture was on multiple unrelated sites, so I figured it would be fine... no? --Mindloss 21:17, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

Thank you. However, the point is that you need permission from the photographer or whoever owns the copyright to the image before you upload it. Regards, Thuresson 21:22, 3 May 2005 (UTC)
for instance this image is (c) sony (taken from their qrio website). FoeNyx 23:43, 30 May 2005 (UTC)


Hello Thuresson, I am not the creator. I just uploaded the image from en:AsimovOnThrone.png along with all the information contained in the description page. There is an explanation about that invariant section here: en:Image talk:AsimovOnThrone.png. Cheers --Anna 01:05, 4 May 2005 (UTC)]

UN Pictures[edit]

Hello, this is Messhermit once again. This time, my question is about the copyright status of pictures that can be obtained by the UN Archives. The Copyright article ( provide that the pictures can be used for publications EXPECT advertising. Does this make the picture eligeble for using in on Wiki-Commons? Thanks for your help. Messhermit 18:36, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

I'm afraid not. Commons:Licensing only allow for images that can be used by anybody for any purpose, including advertising. Thuresson 18:41, 8 May 2005 (UTC)


The way I read the image was "This image is from Simon Ledingham, whose website is", but you may be correct. Now I'm not sure. - Amgine 05:55, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

Re: Woody Allen[edit]

I see the point. My first thought was, when it is on any wiki I can use it on any other wiki, which is NOT the case.

For that specific image I could not find mor details, but I found another image of Woody Allen on a Russian page, which seems to be public domain.

As I speak no russian, I translated the copyright page via babelfish.

Here an extract of the translation: Project "People's History" is noncommercial. Consequently, all information represented here, can be used by you for the work. Reference, with the reprinting is required. Co by all contributors and by sources is understanding. This it indicates: you can - either personally negotiate with the contributor or the publications or give reference on us. Moreover, for convenience in the work in the network the Internet, is specially created intelligible structure, so that you could directly give the reference to the personality interesting you. I.e., it does not prohibit to give ssylochku, passing menu and main page. Project precisely for this is created. The authors, whose of article it is already published:

the Pages are: copyright: and Woody Allen

before I replace the current commans image of Woody Allen by that image, I widh to ask you as an admin if that image is OK for commons or not?

best regards --Jutta234 19:37, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

Page doesn’t contain any author/copyrights holder information. It’s not original article of It came from other source ( which is not exists. I assume it could be found somewhere on but I had some technical problems with search.
Page contains some words about noncommercial nature of project (Проект "People's History" является некоммерческим) but not other words about material ownership. I doubt that this site owns any of copyrights. It could contain some pictures as informational/educational quotes of copyright material what allowed by Russian copyright law (like fair use) but it’s definitely not PD.
My general feeling is that people in ex-USSR countries don’t care too much about copyrights. Probably due luck of copyrights related lawsuits... I’m always suspicious to that kind of sources.
EugeneZelenko 01:14, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

Thuresson, EugeneZelenko thanks a lot for your time checking this. Im a bit sad not be able to find a free image of Woody Allen, but thats live.....

I would like to ask another small question : Its about the fair use licences. The Image of Alan Alda I copies from :en: site had such a license within the USA and was quickly removed from commons. But espially the english wikipedia is a very international site. Not only that lots of people with other than english mother tounge are using it. There are multiple countries with mother tounge english like the UK, Ireland, Malta, Australia or New Zealand. If a fair use license applies only in one of these countries, why such images are and stay on the english wikipedia. There can be problems with other countries.

Please dont misunderstand me. I dont want that these images or artikels get removed from the english wikipedia. All I want is to understand how global wikipedia works. Im a rather a newbie with just about 6 weeks on wiki..... --Jutta234 20:47, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

Archive ?[edit]


Where is the archive ? Where is it mentioned that old discussion is transferred in the archive ? Not only you reverted all cleaning I did, but also my votes and my remarks. :( Yann 11:22, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/Old. Thuresson 11:27, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

Jacques Chirac[edit]


The official photo is OK. This is confirmed by Villy. Please do not delete images without proper inquiring. Yann 10:52, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

Image:Republic of China National Emblem.png and Image:CoA Taiwan.png[edit]

Thank you. I put Image:CoA Taiwan.png in Polish Wiki (Republika Chińska) and Image:Republic of China National Emblem.png is not necessary any more. You can cancel this image. --Julo 15:37, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

OK, thank you. Thuresson 15:39, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

Image:Tex edhistorica001.jpg[edit]

Hi, Thuresson. The image Image:Tex edhistorica001.jpg are been deleted? Write for me with final decision. Hugs, Santana-freitas 03:46, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

And I can upload for Commons other images in the same criterion for articles of the comics of the Wikipedia PT? Or no? Santana-freitas 18:18, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

Image:Real Oviedo badge.png[edit]

I'm not having a good day, so I'll speak plainly: delete the ... image, but then delete also Image:Fc_barcelona.png. I just took my image from the same website and copied the license info of the FC Barcelona file, as that image hasn't been deleted or anything. --Hugo López 13:10, 22 May 2005 (UTC)

Library of Canada[edit]

I found the images of Grace Kelly browsing among the results of a search for "Expo67". Several other celebrities came up in that search, such as Harry Belafonte or Marlene Dietrich. Ary29 09:05, 23 May 2005 (UTC)


You are right, but I am sure that I am not (or would not be) the only person who is surprized that CIA WFB map of Antarctica "doesn't exist". Is it possible to make some kind of link? Also, do you know for some good public resource (data, photos and maps) of antartic and sub-antarctic islands of Norwegian part of Antarctica? --Millosh 16:06, 23 May 2005 (UTC)


Skulle du kunna radera denna bild (Image:Hergé.jpg). För det första, kan jag inte se den, och för det andra så är den copyrightad, och får ej spridas på Wiki. tack. GurraJG | Talk 18:04, 23 May 2005 (UTC)


You deleted Triregno.jpg on the basis that it did not belong on on the Commons. That may be so. Whomever uploaded it obviously put it in as Commons rather than Fairuse. All it needed was to be transferred. By deleting it without warning you messed pages on wikipedia that used it and many pages that contained a category that had used the image. Others had to try to work out what had happened, spend ages tracing back the image again and download again, in the meantime leaving a mucked up category featured article missing its main image. Please when faced with images that are wrongly put on the Commons consider whether it is just a mistake by a user and belongs somewhere else, rather than just causing unexplained chaos. 18:45, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

This image was requested for deletion on April 28 on Commons:Deletion requests by User:Ausir. The uploader was notified the same day, see User talk:Danielm. Uploader claimed the image was public domain and had added a URL, [5], The web link did not contain any license information.
After 10 days the image was deleted. See Commons:Deletion requests/Archives03#Image:Triregno.jpg.
WikiCommons works independently of other Wikimedia projects and do not have to ask permissions, particularly not from English Wikipedia. All deletions are based on the Commons:Deletion guidelines.
Thuresson 22:01, 23 May 2005 (UTC)


ooops, excuse me, please delete that file --ADGE 21:01, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

Image Tex edhistorica001.jpg[edit]

Why the post:

  • "This file is a copyright violation because it is copyrighted and not published under a free license. The file will be deleted unless it is relicensed according to the Commons licensing policy".

are in the image Tex edhistorica001.jpg? Image 3D are deletion too? Or no? I wait your response, if the 3D image of the comics are free in the Commons, I go upload others images. Hugs, Santana-freitas 02:08, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

You claim you own the copyright to this image. However, it is not clear why you own the copyright and not the publisher. It would be helpful if you could add your reasoning behind this on the talk page. Thuresson 12:01, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

Lob (translation )[edit]

You are doing a great job, just wandet to say. -guety 02:20, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

Translation of User talk:Pipodv#Image:Carreras.gif[edit]

My best shot (reworded a bit so it makes sense in English, since some idioms don't translate properly; however, his Spanish grammar is imperfect to begin with):

It is fitting to emphasize that I did not upload the image from the page of the Central University of Venezuela as you say; this guards the right of the author over the contents, but the same expired in 2003.
The image carreras.gif was uploaded from the page of the SECRETARY of the Central University of Venezuela [6]; the same does not present rights of the author, as regards uploading the image.
Whatever the case may be, one can consider the image public domain: in the first place, the rights of the same are expired; secondly, such rights do not exist.
As for your last question, one considers that it is public domain domain [typo?] when the rights of the author expired.
Actually only in Spanish, I will translate it later, thank you for everything and for having tried to make it better. [Signature.]

Hope that helps. — Dan | Talk 19:54, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

Radovan Karadzic and Ratko Mladic[edit]

Hi, I am sorry for the delay, I was away on a trip for a while. The two pictures were taken from a .gov website, with a notice that everything is public domain unless stated otherwise (iirc). There was no other copyright notice on those pictures and I think it is fair to assume that they are indeed PD. --Dcabrilo 04:09, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)


Please take a look to this image. I don't sure it's not copyrighted. Thank you. --EugeneZelenko 01:14, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

This is a fair use image from en:Image:Time-magazine-cover-charles-kettering.jpg. Should be deleted. Thuresson 01:19, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Koll av bilder[edit]


Jag talar till din förstående sida. Bilden till höger har jag funnit på en sida -- men kan inte se vad i den som skulle vara copyright? Håller du inte med om att det är förnuftigt att sätta en PD-ineligible tag på den?

--Fred chessplayer 14:06, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Bakom kartan ligger en inventering utförd av Länsmuséet i Stockholm [7]. Om du tittar igenom en:Category:Public domain images ineligible for copyright ser du ungefär vilken sorts bilder som täcks av "PD-ineligible". Att informationen i en bild är allmänt känd betyder inte att den inte skyddas av upphovsrätten. George W. Bushs ansikte är väl allmänt känd men foton av honom skyddas av upphovsrätten. För det andra kan man väl ifrågasätta att placeringen av runstenar i Upplands Väsby verkligen är allmänt känd kunskap? Thuresson 19:13, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Ja, jag hade en felaktig kunskap av PD-inligible. Jag hade fått idén från bilden av Falsterbo (som du idag ändrade license på). Du får väl ta bort bilden då. Egentligen är det där med runstenar mest kuriosa. Däremot visar den kommunens geografi i detalj, bland annat var Mälaren går och var tätorterna ligger, så den borde gå att använda som Fair use. --Fred Chess 20:56, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Om du har någon lämplig artikel kan bilden självklart användas som "fair use", var bilden är hämtad vet du ju. Thuresson 21:58, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Jag har nu gjort några förändringar på bilden, så du behöver inte ta bort den längre. --Fred Chess 02:05, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Hemingway image[edit]

You are right about Image:Hemingway 1957.jpg, it is copyrighted. In my haste I did not look closely enough at the copyright information. Please delete the image. I will remove the links on the article pages I modified. Balcer 15:04, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Svenskt interface[edit]

Hej Thuresson! Jag undrar om du eller Solkoll har några planer på att översätta det svenska interfacet till svenska? Jag tänker till exempel på att det står "Editing User talk:Thuresson (section) - Redigera - Wikipedia" längst upp på min skärm. Jag tror att man kan ändra Wikipedia till Wikimedia Commons via MediaWiki:Wikititlesuffix/sv. Om ni inte har planer på att översätta, är det värt besväret att jag begär administratörskap för att fixa översättningarna själv? Väsk 17:22, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Gränssnittet skulle behöva en uppryckning, oavsett språk. Överst i webbläsarens fönster står det alltid "Wikipedia", fastän man är på WikiCommons, i rutan "Navigation" till vänster saknas "Current events" om man är inloggad. Jag tycker absolut att det skulle vara jättebra om någon ville översätta vidare. Jag skulle faktiskt kunna nominera dig, om du är intresserad. Thuresson 17:52, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Jo, det är helt okej med mig att du nominerar mig, jag har nog ganska bra koll på vad administratörsskapet innebär. Min tanke var att det kanske var för många med tre svenskspråkiga sysopar, men om det inte är det kan jag ställa upp. Väsk 17:56, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Not: Att "Current events" inte syns för inloggade har nog med den svenska interface-filen att göra. Vid mina genomläsningar av språkfilerna så har jag sett att man kan aktivera respektive avaktivera "Current events" med ett särskilt kommando (om man exempelvis driver en wiki där aktuella händelser är ovidkommande). I de flesta språkfiler är "Current events" aktiverat, men i den svenska filen är det av någon anledning inaktiverat. Väsk 18:08, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Not 2: Jag har kommit på hur man ska aktivera "Current events" i menyraden. Gå in på MediaWiki:Currentevents/sv och skriv "Aktuella händelser", så borde det fungera. Väsk 18:20, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I don't know what has happened[edit]

Really. I was wondering what you mean and after seeing the obvious vandalism I don't know what to say. I could swear that I have nothing to do with the appends to the previous picture sections, but it belongs to my own edition!! I don't know what has happened, but anyway I didn't want to introduce sush a mess :-( --Ecemaml 06:04, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)


I take it we may now proceed with deleting all those useless images, unless you would like to ban me again for no reason. --Mayhem 07:08, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I have absolutely no idea what you mean, I have never banned User:Mayhem. Thuresson 04:48, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Deletion policy for images on both Commons and another Wikipedia[edit]

I invite you to join a discussion about policy I proposed at en:Wikipedia_talk:Images_and_media_for_deletion#Deletion policy for images on both Commons and another Wikipedia. If you know other wikipedians which are concerned, invite them, too. Helix84 16:05, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

University logos[edit]

I didn't know logos had restrictions on their use, since I see them used all over the web. But yeah, since I am done with the commons, you might as well delete all the images and be happy.--StarbucksFreak 05:35, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Image Browning1917.jpg are in gallery Browning M1917

Image:Browning M1919A4 Soldier 1949.jpg are in gallery Browning M1917

Image:M249mg.jpg are in gallery Minimi

Image:M60.jpg are in gallery M60

All these galleries in category Machine guns --Nemo5576 06:21, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)


You said

  • Hi, you have licensed the following images as GFDL but claim that the photographer is unknown. Only the creator or owner of a copyright can license images as GFDL. If you are the copyright owner, please add this to the description page. If the photos are "public domain" they should be tagged PD instead. Regards, Thuresson 06:07, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • This images has more than seventy years and belonged my family, I don't know who photographed, donated in 1955 to National Library, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil.Regards, Angeloleithold 12:33, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)


Please take a look. Is this type of images clear copyvio or not? Thank you. --EugeneZelenko 13:51, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Image:Thomas Mann3.jpg[edit]

Done, is it old enough? -- da didi 14:46, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

No, friendlier because they won't mess up my personal user page by writing messages on it, instead of using my talk page which is what it is intended for. And I already answered you why I uploaded those images. So I don't know what you're talking about. --StarbucksFreak 19:47, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

???? Well, Thuresson, you can delete the image. -- da didi 19:24, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Public Universities of Peru[edit]

Most of the Public Universities in Peru have more than 100 years old, and their Seals are also of the same age. I don't believe that the copyright can apply to those simbols, at least in the case the ones that you have labeled as "missing its copyright". Can you explained me why ? Messhermit 16:14, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Just add the year when the seal was used the first time, e.g. "This seal has been used since 1889", that should be enough to settle if a symbol is in the "public domain". Thuresson 20:47, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

US stamps[edit]

see here Schaengel89 @me 11:31, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Hello, the pic Image:Foto recursiva do artigo da wikipedia.jpg isn't a screenshot. It's only a photo of the monitor.

thank you. --FML 18:25, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)


Thank you Thuresson, but picture 3D can't be copyrighted. See: [8] for example.

hugs, --FML 05:03, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

See [9]

Re: Vladimir Vysotsky[edit]

Both photos originates from book published in 1994 (Источник: Владимир Высоцкий. Собрание сочинений в семи томах. Venda Publishing Co., Velton Verlag GmbH & BBE GmbH, 1994. Составитель Сергей Жильцов.). Author of the site doesn't have copyrights (знак копирайта на этих страницах не означает, что материалы, находящиеся тут, принадлежат мне).

PD-Soviet could not be applied here too, because photos ware made according to the site in 1973 (Image:0090.jpg) and 1978 (Image:Vysotsky Vladimir 1978.jpg) and publishing dates are unknown.

I think these images must be deleted.

EugeneZelenko 01:46, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Re: Image:Palacio de LaMoneda02.png[edit]

Added commnent of personal shot. Taken same day has Image:Palacio de La Moneda.png --JorgeGG 14:40, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

avbildning av sedlar[edit]

För att anknyta till ett tidigare samtal. Jag har fått ett svar från riksbanken, och eftersom det är ett officiellt svar från en myndighetsperson så antar jag att jag kan reproducera det.

[Start] Hej, Den konstnärliga upphovsrätten ägs inte av Riksbanken. Vi ger enligt våra nuvarande regler aldrig tillstånd till att avbilda sedlar. Enligt ett liggande förslag kan vi komma att i fortsättningen under vissa förutsättningar tillåta avbildning av sedlar i linje med det som gäller för eurosedlar Jag vet inte om detta är ett tillräckligt svar på din fråga. Jag kan tillägga att sedlar som inte längre är giltiga fortfarande går fortfarande att lösa in hos Riksbank - bla av det skälet är det givetvis önskvärt att avbildningar av ogiltiga sedlar sedlar görs med försiktighet. Med vänlig hälsning Per-Olof Arevik EKF/MOP


Inte för att jag förstår vem man ska tillfråga när det inte gäller exakta avbildningar utan t.e.x om de har en brasklapp ovanpå som säger [DEMONSTRATION]. Jag antar att det då gäller de konsnärliga rättigheterna, vilka, som du påpekade, ägdes av E. Palmkvist som dog 1999...

Vad jag dock finner anmärkningsvärt är att jag flera gånger sett sedlar avbildas i tidningar, med just med en sådan brasklapp. --Fred Chess 17:14, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Jättebra att du tog ett initiativ. Sedlar brukar ju ibland avbildas, ofta med texten "Specimen" tryckt. Kanske är det så att Riksbanken låter många fall passera utan åtgärd även om man inte formellt har gett tillstånd? Kanske är det så att Riksbanken inte ingriper så länge inte en tidning tar in en bild som är en exakt återgivning i skala 1:1? I samband med att nya sedlar infördes, t.ex. 100-lappen och 500-lappen under 1980- och 1990-talet minns jag mycket väl att tidningarna skrev och visade foton. Thuresson 17:23, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Jag antar att man får lov att göra det om det är i upplysande syfte? Det verkar ju vara synnerligen viktigt att folk vet hur sedlar ser ut innan de kommer ut på marknaden. Men bilden på 5-kronan har väl ingen plats på commons -- eventuellt kommer jag ladda upp bilder på svenska slantar på Engelska Wiki och förse dem allihop med en dylik text [SPECIMEN] och lägge dem under Fair use. // Fred Chess 22:24, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Ok sedel igen :-)
Riksbanken har haft vänligheten att uppdatera sin sida för att förklara hur de ser på elektroniska efterbildningar. . Jag laddade upp följande exempel på engelska wiki en:Image:Fem kronor Sweden.jpg. Det kanske är bäst att ta bort 5-kr sedeln från commons för att undvika brott mot lagen?
--Fred Chess 02:35, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Image:Znak C2.png Image:Znak C4.png[edit]

Image:Znak C2.png Image:Znak C4.png - both of them are in two versions. Would you be so kind and delete these older? Best regards --Julo 20:47, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)


Sorry for my bad english, but I take these images from: [1] [2] [3]

I dont think about these. I don't protest, and I accept for delete these images. Thanks. --Taichi 04:54, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)


--Utilisateur:MG*** <@> Accueil Main Page [Accueil] 08:45, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Image on Commons with permission from the copyright holder?[edit]

Thuresson, you seem to know the policy for Commons. Can I place an image on Commons if the copyright holder explicitly permitted me to do so? --Manscher 11:20, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

if the copyright holder permits use by anyone, then yes. If permission is given for use on the commons / by wikimedia projects only, then no - look at Template:Permission. It would always be best if the copyright holder places the pictures under a freee license - this can only be done by the author. -- Duesentrieb 11:51, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

kommun vapen[edit]

Du satte en copy vio på Image:Täby City Arms.jpg. Med anledning härav, undrar jag vilken status kommunvapnen har. Du har ju deltagit i en debatt Commons:Deletion_requests/Archives02#Image:Steinkjer_komm.png om de norska kommunvapnen Category:Norwegian_coats_of_arms där det beslutades att behålla de norska kommunvapnena på commons. Så vad tror du vi ska göra med svenska kommunvapen?

--Fred Chess 11:53, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

De flesta svenska stadsvapnen är PD - Stockholms stads S:t Erik, Helsingborgs vapen med slott, Norrköpings S:t Olof som har anor sedan medeltiden. Det gäller dock knappast administrativa efterkrigsskapelser som Täby kommun, som f.ö. aldrig varit en stad utan en köping. Om du anser att Täby kommunvapen är PD bör du åtminstone ge någon förklaring som gör detta troligt. Thuresson 12:44, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Det är inte PD-status som är frågan, eftersom jag tror att diskussionen kring de norska kommunvapnena gav att dessa kunde användas fritt så länge de inte felaktigt representerade kommunen. Det kommer bli många debatter om jag ska behöva argumentera för varje enskilt nutida vapen. Om du inte accepterar dem på commons, säg till så laddar jag upp dem på engelska wiki i en liten storlek och kräver "fair use".
I frågan om Täby så är väl ett medeltida kors knappast att räkna som upphovsrättsskydddat.
--Fred Chess 18:23, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)


Hi Thuresson. I'm the author of image:isqueiro.jpg but I don't use it. I don't mind if you delete it, but if someone is using it, I can tag it with GFDL. Paulo Juntas 12:38, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Images of Maria-sama ga Miteru[edit]

The reason is, these pictures don't have any copyright beacuse is an additional work to the novel; the copyright apply only the novel of Konno Oyuki, but not to the pictures of Hibiki Reine. Sorry for my bad english.


Taichi 19:26, 24 Jun 2005 (CET)

Having trouble uploading image[edit]

Hi Thuresson! I'm having trouble uploading this image to replace Current event marker.png. Have any ideas? NGerda 01:06, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Sure, what is the problem? I can see that you have uploaded the image three times the last few minutes. Perhaps it's a problem with your web browser's cache. Or you can try checking the image in a different web browser. Thuresson 01:08, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

There we go! I never knew it was so simple! Thanks a bunch! NGerda 01:12, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Now it won't work again :( NGerda 01:29, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Your last upload was 30 minutes ago, that's what I can see. Do you get any error messages? I don't see any reason why it worked then but not now :( Thuresson 01:32, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Image:Simeon the great of bulgaria.jpg[edit]

If the scenerio is as indicated as in my page, this image at Wikipedia shall also be deleted. Ktsquare 01:47, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I wrote "Since WikiCommons do not allow fair use images, this image has been deleted.". English Wikipedia do allow fair use images.
Also when you uploaded this image you wrote that it is protected by copyright until 2029. I do not understand why you did go through with it. Thuresson 01:51, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Actually, en:User:Zeimusu wrote the note. As of the final year of copyright protection, Zeimusu indicated, "died in 1979 and it was published in 1927. (Bulgarian copyright is life+50)." Assuming Zeimusu's correctness on the Bulgarian copyright regulatiions, I have overlooked the "life+50" issue mistakenly. I thought it was birth year +50. Maybe a better explanation by Zeimusu would have helped. Ktsquare 02:21, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I'm sure you'll find the following discussion interesting, about the background to the image: [10]. It's from en:Wikipedia:Image sleuthing in April. 02:30, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)


Pourquoi cette image et elle proposée a etre détruite?

Utilisateur:MG 26/06/2005



This Image was deleted because there were not further secure information about the license. If it was yout picture you can reupload it and (important!) explain why it can be declared as public domain. --FEXX 26 June 2005 08:48 (UTC)

User:Londenp reqeusted deletion of this image on June 16. He wrote: This page was deleted on the WP:NL, which was the source of this picture, because it is most likely copyrighted. That is why I have added this symbol here. I will also inform other wikipedia's using this picture
On the same day, I notified you about this request. The request was listed on Commons:Deletion requests for nine days until it was deleted on June 25. Thuresson 26 June 2005 10:16 (UTC)
Then everything seems to be ok! Next time it would be better if you leave your messages in English because the decrypt-process of your french took a long time. --FEXX 27 June 2005 23:50 (UTC)

Arianes rocket and Spider[edit]

Hello Thuresson, I come talk with you about 2 files :

Moreover, I still have other pic improve from fr:Image:Arianes.jpg (ESA), rocket aren't modified and Roby had just cut the blue background. Can we or not upload this kind of work to fr under the ESA license ?

Regards :] Yug talk 26 June 2005 09:19 (UTC)

As I recall, the spider photos looked exactly the same. My advice is that if you "improve" an image on WikiCommons, you should upload it with the same name, to replace the old version.
As far as I know, ESA do not allow commercial use of their photos or drawings and for this reason are not suitable on WikiCommons. Remember that ESA own the copyright even if you change the blue background and that they may not even accept that you change the image in any way. All I know is that WikiCommons do not allow images that can not be used by anybody for any purpose.
The users of French Wikipedia must decide if ESA material is suitable there. Regards, Thuresson 26 June 2005 10:16 (UTC)

Image:68aff nepasvote.jpg[edit]

The picture Image:68aff nepasvote.jpg was a well known poster of French May '68. There is no reason to not consider it as a Public Domain image. JucaZero 26 June 2005 19:07 (UTC)

Being wellknown is not a criteria in copyright law. You need to show that the creator has released this to the public domain. Thuresson 26 June 2005 19:47 (UTC)


Liftarn har laddat upp en egen bild på stenen (Image:Runestonegripsholm.jpg), så du kan radera Tåggas bild. Tupsharru June 26, 2005 19:57 (UTC)


Hi, the logo is in the public domain: it was a public company that was dissolved nearly 15 years ago. Argentine public companies' logos never had any (C), (R) or similar notice, and the FA logo is present in many train-related websites with no trouble. Anyway, an admin of the Spanish wiki decided that the copyright status is uncertain (there are many images out there with more much uncertain status...). Galio

You should add this and a copyright tag to Image:Logo fa.png. Thuresson 27 June 2005 21:59 (UTC)
Can you do it, please? I'm practically new with this and would prefer someone experienced to manage the issue, specially because the person that removed the PD tag may insist. Galio 28 June 2005 02:57 (UTC)

User MG[edit]

OK, will do ... This person is somewhat peculiar though, even in French ;) villy 29 June 2005 10:05 (UTC)

Image:Skarimpas giannis.jpg[edit]

The image is in the public domain in the Greek Wikipedia and was first put by User:Diderot, do not delete, now you can put {{GFDL}} in the image. User:Pumpie, 01:07 (UTC)

No, I can't add a copyright tag on behalf of others, I don't know anything about this photo. Thuresson

about OCSAfis.jpg and OCS.jpg[edit]

They are from a press release got by mail ... Here is the press release ( comunicat de presa ) in romanian : OCS. By default press releases are in the public domain if you copy/paste them with no modifications. So, the images that were attached are in the public domain. I guarrantee it. Now, how do i say that those images are from a press release that came on my work mail ? D.evil 1 July 2005 08:11 (UTC)

press releases and images in them ...[edit]

when a press release ( text ) is sent to any magazine, newspaper the newspaper can use it as a information sourse or CAN publish it without doing any modifications. When images are received that accompany the press release, those images CAN be modified ( example, inserting a newspaper or magazine specific watermark ). By that means, the images CAN be modified by any user on Wiki. This rule comes from the Code of Ethycs of any newspaper, magazine. And after all, the WikiNews Romania has all the press releases in them with afferent sources ( urls or MAILS ) of the source. I think i made my point, that the text CAN'T be modified, by the image can, as they are released to the world in the public domain. ( the images are released for re-publishing, the text must be carried along the images AS-IS ).

D.evil 1 July 2005 10:21 (UTC)

Anker Jørgensen[edit]

Det ser ud som om, du har slettet tre af mine billeder af f.d. statsminister i Danmark Anker Jørgensen. Temmeligt irriterende, da jeg er copyright holder på alle tre, men dog ikke var opmærksom på copyright tags. Morten Andersen, Marloth2000


for reverting this clone vandal. --:Bdk: July 6, 2005 16:14 (UTC)

Image:CSC-estoril.png; Image:MFR.png; Image:FregsAbrantes.png[edit]


Thank you for your message on these three files.

I have uploaded the requested info for the two coat of arms (CSC-estoril.png & MFR.png), these have been originally downloaded from this site and the author has given he’s consent for use on the wikipedia, the consent can be seen in the Portuguese wikipedia at pt:Imagem:AGD-agadao.JPG. I have uploaded other coats of arms from the same source, when I have the time I will include the requested info on them also, so please be so kind has to not list them for deletion.

As for FregsAbrantes.png, this image was found on the Portughese wikipedia, it was made and originally uploaded by User:Jorge, I believe it can be used on all the other wikipedias. It is currently being used on the Portuguese, Galician and English (this last one I’ve putted it there).--João Correia 00:24, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

Image:London Underground Zone1 Anschlaege en.png[edit]

Hey, you marked this image as a copyvio, but both images were licenced under the GFDL, so I've now removed the copyvio notice. -- Joolz 7 July 2005 11:36 (UTC)

Yes, but original map is not licensed under a free license, hence copyvio. Thuresson 7 July 2005 11:37 (UTC)
The source image is licensed under the GFDL. See current copyright status here: Image:London_Underground_Closed.png, someone had deleted the image in the mean time, so I had to reupload and reattribute (nice one to delete an image that's actually being used btw :-P ) . Nice to see you're keeping track of things so quickly, not so nice when you're fighting wikinews in the process :-) Kim Bruning 7 July 2005 11:45 (UTC)
All the maps of the London Underground seem to be based on a map not licensed under an free license. I haven't deleted any maps, but there could be a deletion request against them. Thuresson 7 July 2005 11:50 (UTC)
Ok, gottit, we should ask the original uploaders then. How frustrating! Are you sure the new uploaders didn't correctly (re)licence their content under GFDL? Kim Bruning 7 July 2005 12:01 (UTC)
According to [11] the original map is not GFDL, therefore other maps based on it can not be GFDL either. Take a look at en:Image:London Underground Zone1.png, the original creator Simon Clarke do not allow commercial use. That's exactly the kind of images that are not allowed on WikiCommons. Thuresson 7 July 2005 12:13 (UTC)
Damn my good faith! I regret not checking more throughly now. -- Joolz 7 July 2005 14:13 (UTC)

Second Punic War Battles[edit]

I mailed him asking for permission to publish them in the wikipedia under the GFDL. That is what he refers to when he says "the maps can be used for the reasons above" ('above' references to my original mail). So that I've been uploading maps from there under GFDL. --RedTony (⇨ ✉) 8 July 2005 08:37 (UTC)

About Image:Hillary 1.jpg {unverified}[edit]

Hi, I've found this image on en.wikipedia (en:Image:Hillary 1.jpg).

You wrote that the image isn't on Clinton site, please check this provided URL As you can see the url is from "" and the image is named "official portrait", on en.wikipedia there's this template en:template:PD-USGov-Congress. I've trusted this description and as far I know USgov images are really in PD. Can you confirm this? Thanks :) --Lukius 8 July 2005 08:53 (UTC)

All images on .gov sites are not public domain. Only photos by federal employees taken in their official duty are public domain. claims [12] that Information presented on this site is considered public information and may be distributed or copied unless otherwise specified.. That's why it would be helpful if you knew which web page this photo is used on. Thuresson 8 July 2005 09:39 (UTC)
Frankly I can't see your point, the image is an official portrait from US Senate. I took it from en.wikipedia (where is in use with a PD license). What I can do more? I give up :) --Lukius 8 July 2005 10:54 (UTC)


No, it isn't. A wikipedian from es: got this atorization from PromPerú. If someone else want to use this image out of wikipedia must ask for permission. --Guillermo Romero [@] 8 July 2005 23:11 (UTC)

About Image deletion warning : Image:Calligramme.jpg[edit]

Thanks for your message but I thinks it's belong to teh public domain cause the author was died for more 90 years. --Pseudomoi 13:12, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

About Image:DCP 3697.JPG[edit]

Sorry. I took that picture like a year ago, but I guess I forgot to put the {{GFDL}} tag. For more similar pictures, see Universidad Nacional de Colombia. --Julianortega 21:12, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

Photo's of Katyn[edit]

It's terrible message - German law do not accept ancient Latin sentence lex retro non agit? It is suprise for me. And if it is so delete this photo, and of course Image:Katyn.jpg & Image:Katyn2.gif & Image:Katyn3.jpg. Stupid, nonunderstandably law :-)) Ency 18:29, 12 July 2005 (UTC)


Is there a reason why you removed the deletion request tag from this image? MattKingston 06:23, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

See Commons:Deletion requests/Archives03#Image:Sudoku.gif. When this was requested for deletion in May there was not a consensus to go through with it. Thuresson 09:44, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

Flag of Countries[edit]

Thank you for guides. I do not find the flag of Yugoslavia (before dissolving into Serbia&Montenegro, Bosnia, Croatia... ) here. 04:11, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

I found Flag of SFR Yugoslavia already. But I am still searching for flags of Denmark, Hungary, Serbia and Vietnam. Meanwhile there are 4 images of Norvegian flag! Avia 07:24, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

Image:Denmark flag 300.png, Image:Hungary flag 300.png, Image:Yugoslavia flag 300.png, Image:Vietnam flag 300.png. Thuresson

Bulk image deletion[edit]

Please do not do this, unless you are using much more information than the "no license" category to filter out those that should be deleted. Over half of the 20-30 images I spot-checked from your lists were clearly taken by the uploader, not counting the three of mine I crossed out. Sj 12:22, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

I also hope that you are letting some other administrator handle the actual deletion of the images, which requires more than simply bein on that list without complaint... some of the images in question have both a license and an "unknown" tag on them; some are undergoing a license query, etc. Sj 12:25, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
All photos on WikiCommons needs a source and a license. Considering that users can upload pretty much any grainy, blurred thumbnail sized photos they like, it's not asking too much to require background information. It also makes it more difficult for trouble makers to upload photos they don't own. Requesting deletion has proven a remarkably efficient way to have forgetful uploaders tag their photos and to delete potential copyright problems.
WikiCommons is an image depository for free content - photos without copyright tags are not free. Thuresson 15:42, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

Kolorering av svartvit bild[edit]

Hej Thuresson! Eftersom du är den administratör här som jag känner till så vänder jag mig till dig.

Jag laddade upp mina första bilder till Commons natten till idag och är alltså ganska ovan. Jag laddade upp bilden image:Jameskeirhardie.jpg som jag hämtat från en:Image:Jameskeirhardie.jpg inatt. Bilden föreställer Keir Hardie, som var något av Storbritanniens August Palm, och bör vara från omkring förra sekelskiftet. Strax efter att jag lagt upp den var någon inne och färglade bilden. Nu blir det väl en kolorerad bild man ser om man länkar till Commonsbilden? Jag tycker att det ser väldigt löjligt ut. Vad är det för sätt att färglägga ett gammalt porträttfotografi från ca år 1900? Jag hoppas att det går att återställa den svartvita eller göra två versioner så att man kan länka till den svartvita. Jag ska åka bort några dagar och kommer då inte att kunna se om du svarar, men jag är mycket tacksam för hjälp med detta! Jag är ganska upprörd just nu och hoppas att jag inte har uttryckt mig ohövligt på något sätt.

Vänliga hälsningar Nicke L 06:11, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

Detta verkar röra sig om ett enmansprojekt. Jag har återställt ovanstående bild och Image:Chamberlain.jpg och ordnat så att respektive färglagd version finns separat. Jag har också bett User:Vlad2i att inte skriva över svartvita bilder med färgade versioner. Detta har också han/hon lovat att följa. Thuresson 16:07, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
Tack så mycket för hjälpen! Ursäkta min långa upprörda harang. Skönt att det där blev ordnat. /Nicke L 22:04, 17 July 2005 (UTC)


Do you still want to have this photo deleted? What's the name of the replacement? You can either leave me a message or write {{redundant|[[:Image:Name of new photo.jpg]]}} on the image description page. Thuresson 01:30, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

Deletion would be good. I've been holding off on adding the new one till this one was deleted. I just got two photo names muddled up. I'll upload it this weekend sometime. Thanks for you help! --Komencanto 11:35, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

Image:Dahlia La Gioconda.jpg[edit]

Es una foto realizada por mi. Perdón por no colocar la licencia. Arreglado. Gracias


Hej, skulle du som är sysop kunna skriva Uppladdningsvarning i MediaWiki:Uploadwarning/sv. Det standardmeddelande som visas nu verkar vara Uppladdnings varning, och det ser ju inte så snyggt ut. / EnDumEn 14:29, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

Tashkent TV Tower Image[edit]

Thank you for letting me know about the fact that that picture, which I originally uploaded, had been proposed for deletion. I had taken the image from German Wikipedia, where it was listed as having a GNU licence. However, the information about the origin of the image was insufficient, and the person who originally uploaded it to the German Wikipedia didn't reply to the requests for clarification, so there was nothing I could do about that image. It's a shame because I had used that image in the article about Tashkent on Spanish Wikipedia. I hope somebody will upload some pictures of Tashkent at some point.--AngelRiesgo 20:28, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

Ofullständig licens[edit]

Hej igen! Jag har ju just börjat ladda upp bilder här och förstås redan hamnat i upphovsrättssoppan. Image:Chamberlain.jpg har märkts med {{incomplete license}} och jag skulle tro att flera andra bilder som jag lagt upp kan bli märkta på samma sätt. Alla bilderna var märkta med {{PD}} på engelska Wikipedia där jag hämtade dem och jag antog dumt nog att det skulle vara tillräckligt.

Jag hoppas att bilderna Image:LloydGeorge.jpg, Image:David Lloyd George - Project Gutenberg eText 15306.jpg och Image:Acgladstone2.jpg har tillräcklig information för att vara märkta med PD, men de andra bilderna som jag laddat upp kanske är tveksamma allihop. Det gäller alltså, förutom Joseph Chamberlain-bilden, Image:Arthurhenderson.jpg, Image:Balfour.jpg och Image:Jameskeirhardie.jpg. Jag har skrivit till dem på engelska Wikipedia som ursprungligen laddade upp dem.

Du får gärna kommentera detta och lägga till {{Incomplete license}}-märkning på bilderna om det behövs. Jag kanske kan lära mig lite till nästa gång om jag laddar upp fler bilder så att jag gör rätt från början. Jag hoppas att jag inte orsakar dig för mycket besvär. Hänvisa mig gärna till någon annan användare om du inte har tid att kolla det här. Hälsningar Nicke L 21:52, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

en:User:Dbiv har svarat mig här. Jag hoppas att hans svar är tillräckligt för de bilderna. /Nicke L 22:07, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
Jag tycker att du ska lägga till på bildsidan den information du har fått och eftersom det är fotografier kan du också lägga till när personen på bilden dog. Det är förstås jättesvårt att ta reda på vem som tagit bilden men om det är någon regeringsfotograf som tagit bilden behöver du inte oroa dig för upphovsrätten, "Crown Copyright" - skyddet för sådana bilder går ut 50 år efter publicering. T.ex. David Lloyd George dog 1922 så det är väl knappast troligt att det finns någon upphovsrätt till bilden 83 år senare. Sedan kan du lämna en rad hos den som satte ut "Incomplete license" att informationen har kompletterats så tar jag för givet att denne tar bort mallen från dina bilder. Thuresson 00:23, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
Tack för svaret! /Nicke L 09:28, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
Förresten: David Lloyd George dog inte förrän 1945, han var premiärminister till 1922. /Tillfällig besserwisser 10:24, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

Sorry i've not been here for a long time[edit]

So i didn't response for your masegge in time, the file you list on deleten requrst Image:DSCN1812.JPG,because it have had been deleted so i con't remamber what is it about,but i'm sure it is taken by me,because the file name is DSCN****.JPG so if you delete it because problems about copyright,i want to ask you to relex it ,thanks --Snowyowls 13:11, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

Image:Richard Dehmel (1905).jpg[edit]

Please protect this image as I'm about to put it on the en main page. Thanks--Pharos 02:27, 21 July 2005 (UTC).


Thanks for your message. I was not aware that I have include the GFDL or PD tag in the description. I have added them now. Thanks again - Santhoshguru 07:38, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

thank you[edit]

I just wanted to drop you a quick note to thank you for your work in Category:Unknown. Thank youTournesol.png -- Breezie 14:42, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

Sveriges flagga[edit]

Jag vet inte om du bemärkte min kommentar på sv:Bild:Sweden_flag_300.png? Hur som helst har jag laddat upp en flagga från engelska wikipedia till Image:Sweden_flag_300.png, som jag kommit överrens om stämmer tillsammans med en:User_talk:E Pluribus Anthony. Jag vet inte om du håller med om våra argument? Flaggan har exakt samma färger och proportioner som flaggan på

Flaggan på Image:Flag of Sweden.png ser något annorlunda ut, men kanske stämmer färgerna bättre på den flaggan? UserDbenbenn satte sedan en redundant tag på en av flaggorna, etc etc.

Detta är väl egentligen en småsak, men ändå så enkelt att få 100% korrekt eftersom det finns en exakt förebild hur den ska se ut. Jag anser att vi behöver ha EN commons standardflagga som ska användas på alla wikipedias. Det krävs då att vi är överrens om att den är helt korrekt.

Bästa hälsningar, --Fred Chess 15:24, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

Det finns bestämt exakt vilka nyanser svenska flaggan har, se [13]. Jag tycker också att WikiCommons helst bara ska ha en svensk flagga, då behöver man bara ändra på ett ställe. Jag tycker nog att Image:Sweden flag small.png bör tas bort så kan den som har hågen ändra i någon av de mer etablerade flaggorna. Thuresson 03:39, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
Ok jag satte redundant på den lilla flaggan. Dbenbenn föreslog att flaggor kunde skilje något i färger eftersom färger är subjektiva.
Problemet med Svensk Standard SS 019101 är att inget normakt dataprogram använder det? Tydligen får vi därför dras med två flaggor så länge. Det ligger folk därför de olika wikipediorna fritt att använda en av de två flaggorna efter tycke. V.G. se min talk page för en jämförelse mellan dem.
--Fred Chess 21:43, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

Image:Wellington City Night.jpg[edit]

Please protect this as it's on the en main page. Thanks.--Pharos 03:56, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

Fair Use[edit]

Hi Thuresson. You deleted Image:Kenyaarms22.PNG with Fair use as a reason. Can you explain this? The coat of arms is already in use in the English wikipedia (at, and I'd like to use it on the Afrikaans wikipedia too. Surely this is permissable? Greenman 13:46, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps to be clearer, the Engish wikipedia page states: This image has been released into the public domain by the copyright holder, its copyright has expired, or it is ineligible for copyright. This applies worldwide.
It's not the same as the other fair use images you deleted, which state: This work is copyrighted. The individual who uploaded this work and first used it in an article, and subsequent persons who place it into articles assert that this qualifies as fair use of the material under United States copyright law. Greenman 13:50, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
If the government of Kenya has released the COA to the public domain, sure. Else, WikiCommons has a very restrictive policy on company logos and insignias not released under an open license. Just claiming that something is public domain is not good enough, the uploader must explain why it is public domain, preferrably with a source who can verify this quickly. Thuresson 13:56, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

Paralympics flag[edit]

It was me who drew this flag based on images included for the next paralympics. I thought it would have the same status as the five rings olympic logo at, so I reproduced the license messages there. Isn't it an international flag? I see the Olympic rings (actually, as many country flags) reproduced everywhere eventhough it's a registered logo.

If I take a photo of one of these flags ¿would it be fair use? Uuuf, sometimes this gets quite tricky... byj 14:29, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

The five olympic rings is a trademark belonging to the Olympic Committee. I assume that Image:Paralympic2003.png is also a trademark although I have never seen it before. I don't think you can claim copyright on this and if it does not have a free license, it may have to be deleted. Thuresson 14:45, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
You may check at and there too, you have links (small) to the Paralympic games in Torino and Beijing where the three "agitos" are included at the bottom of their particular logos.
>> I don't think you can claim copyright Not me, please, and I don't think anybody could. For what I see the problem is the same for the Olympic and Paralympic flags: you may accept both or reject both (Paralympic is very newer, I know). Isn't it like GNU and GPL?: GNU is the legal copyright holder, sort of protector, who pays for the lawyers :) but there's a real universal human kind property... The flag is not the IOC or IPC flag, but the Olympic and Paralympic Movement flag. I'm not blaming you, I'm trying to think of a practical and reasoned way of dealing with these symbols... byj 21:11, 23 July 2005 (UTC) Quite strict, I'm afraid :( byj 21:52, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
All images on WikiCommons need a copyright tag. You can:
  1. Tag this as GFDL or CC, which probably would mean that you made a copyright violation
  2. Tag this as fair use, which means that it would be deleted from WikiCommons
  3. Leave it without a copyright tag and image would be deleted in due time
Let's be clear, GNU is not the legal copyright holder, the Free Software Foundation is a very small organization with very little money. It is the person uploading an image who is legally responsible who will have to pay the lawyers. Thuresson 23:39, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
Could I add a GFDL tag as the author of the image with a sort of disclaimer about the logo being property of the Paralympic Movement? What's going to happen about the Olympic flag (Olympic_Movement_1914.png)? byj 07:36, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
According to the link you mentioned above, the logo is designed by Scholz & Friends, they are the authors, not you. I would suggest that you ask about this on Commons:Village pump so that others can give their opinion. I must say however that I think you have infringed on both copyright and trademark rights. Thuresson 09:06, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
 !!! I just tried to apply the same procedure you used for the Olympic flag !!! Fair enough: if that is what you think that's enough and I will remove it myself. I may ask in Commons:Village pump to remove Olympic_Movement_1914.png as well. I'm terribly sorry for my mistake. Excuse me, please. (BTW, what I meant was that I drew the image myself from scratch, I never meant that I was the designer or that I owned the logo, sniff ¿why would someone pretend to be the owner of an international flag?) byj 20:51, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

Image:Gustaf II Adolf-staty, Göteborg.JPG[edit]

Hej Thuresson!

Kan du radera ovanstående. Jag missade att det ehm... inte var rätt kung... vilket Tupsharru gjorde mig uppmärksam på.

Gunnar Larsson 17:42, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

protect image for en main page[edit]

It's Image:Joburg top.jpg; I already added the template. Thanks for helping out again.--Pharos 00:57, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

Nicholas Asimos.jpg[edit]

Well, there's a minor problem: The person/artist depicted is dead, the picture was taken by the artist's camera by his wife (he was an avid photographer), and he was a known anarchist who explicitely expressed his objections against public property and copyright. He explicitely reliased all his songs on tape and refused to make an album on the purpose that his songs would not be free. So, I have no clue how to tag his pic, besides as "GFDL" if even only to honor his spirit and wishes. I'm open to suggestions, thought. Let me know to my talk page. Thanks.

Oh, that patra-panaxaiko pic was actually taken by my flight school instructor and he used it in his page. he didn't mind me using it, so, what should i do? my flight instructor is nowhere on the internet.

Chinese money[edit]

answered you on my page. --¡0-8-15! 09:02, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

== Lofti Zadeh's photography ==[edit]

Hi Thuresson, I tried to give an answer on my User_talk:Marc.M page regarding possible violation. Thanks for your job. Feel free to do what you think is the best. Just let me know as to update the Fuzzy operator article if the image is deleted. Regards --Marc M., Bruxelles (be) 14:17, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

finally... --Marc M., Bruxelles (be) 08:50, 27 July 2005 (UTC) :
   * Image:Lofti A Zadeh@110x160.jpeg (copyright issue ?)
   * Image:Zadeh-barcelona-1997@92x115.gif (ok)
   * Image:Mastorokostas-zadeh-kolias-1997@300x226.gif (ok)
   * Fuzzy operator (relies on Barcelona 1997 photography)

Is this ok for you?
You may delete the first image if you believe it's better...
Or, may be, still give a chance we get an answer from Berkeley?


Hello, I was absent for nearly a month and I've found that Femesa.png has been deleted. I'm sorry I hadn't the copyright data at the time, but it's the same as Image:Logo fa.png, which now reads: "This image is not subject to copyright law in its country of origin (Argentina), but to trademark law. According to article 5 of Law 22362, rights over the trademark are extinct." I'll now reupload the deleted image and put the proper copyright notice.


No, I'm neither. But I though screenshots were fair-use. Am I mistaken? Thanks.--Muchosucko 08:23, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

Image:Krumm-hellerpeq.jpg and Image:Fralogopeq.jpg[edit]

I nominated both images because the Fraternitas Rosicruciana Antiqua sent a kind of permission, but later they sent to me an e-mail saying that the images are copyrighted. Well, now I don't know if we can use the images or not. Best regards, Campani 16:50, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

Midi File from Bruce Springsteen[edit]

Hello Thureson,

you wrote: "Bruce Springsteen is probably the correct copyright owner to his music, please do not claim copyright for the hard and laborious work of others. Thuresson 12:29, 26 July 2005 (UTC)"

I do not claim copyright or something else. I never said, that i were the composer or recorded it on CD or Tape or something else. I only played the song on my keyboard for demonstration as Midi-File in the Bruce Springsteen article. As you can see, the Description of the file is:

SinaloaCowboys.mid (2KB, MIME type: audio/mid) Description: A few bars from Bruce Springsteens title "Sinaloa Cowboys)" Source: Self recorded Musician: —Boris Fernbacher 08:51, 23 July 2005 (UTC) Other versions:

Sorry, i don`t know were the problem is ?

With greetings —Boris Fernbacher 17:12, 26 July 2005 (UTC) I think it`s clear, that Springsteen wrote the song and owns the rights.

If Springsteen own the rights, what right have you to make this available to to others? The problem is that you are making the copyrighted works of Bruce Springsteen available to others for free download. AFAIK Springsteen has not released his music to the public domain, nor GFDL, nor CC and hence do not belong on WikiCommons. Thuresson 17:19, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

Category Photo[edit]

Hi Thuresson, why you delete the Category:Photo from User:FML/byme? Only for know, thanks, bye --FML IconSP.jpg hi 21:40, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

Because Category:Photo is a deprecated category. As soon as the category is empty it will be deleted. Thuresson 21:42, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
Ahn, ok, but it has in the main page, only for you know. Thanks! bye. --FML IconSP.jpg hi 22:03, 26 July 2005 (UTC)


Already fixed status of Image:Forum sl.jpg, thanks for the hints. --LeonardoG 22:57, 26 July 2005 (UTC)


I'm not speak english... Sorry....--Oraculo 07:13, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

Português: (missing text)

Eu simplismente peguei a foto da wp:en, e coloquei um link para a respectiva pagina na wp:en--Oraculo 07:51, 27 July 2005 (UTC)


Thuresson, please, can you see my contributions in Commons and help me in Commons:Administrators, please? thank you, bye. --FML IconSP.jpg hi 02:26, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

I will help you with brazilian user Oraculo, you can let in my hand, if you want. bye, thanks. --FML IconSP.jpg hi 02:27, 28 July 2005 (UTC)


You write at the top of this page "Welcome to my talk page. I always enjoy answering questions or taking part in a debate between users who respect each other."
Where do you show this when you revert a newly uploaded, watermarked picture without as much as a remark at my talk page?
Eller är det här respekt på svenska? Jag tycker inte om ditt vis at visa respekt på i så fall. Tackar för ingenting! Noorse 07:38, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

I don't need your permission. You have licensed your photo under a Creatice Commons license that allow anybody to make changes to to it. If you are unhappy with the changes, I suggest you tag your photos with Template:cc-by-nd-2.0 (use the tag {{cc-by-nd-2.0}}. Thuresson 07:54, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
Who talked about permission? I did not. What I said was "without as much as a remark at my talk page?" You didn't even bother to tell me what you'd done. And that's far from showing others respect... Noorse 08:19, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
Thuresson, may I suggest you do not suggest anybody to use the {{cc-by-nd-2.0}} license. This license is not valid on Commons. I quote from Commons:Licensing#Well-known_licenses:
The following licenses are wide-spread, but explicitly not allowed (unless, of course, the file is also under a free licence):
* Creative Commons Non-Commercial Only (-NC) licenses
* Creative Commons No-Derivatives (-ND) licenses
* Material usable under the fair use clause or a similar law (see below for the reasons).
CyeZ 10:57, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

Gray Wolf[edit]

Image:Canis lupus laying.jpg? Download high resolution version (3914x4886, 6382 KB) This in the maximun hight resolution image

Image:Gray WolfMweb.jpg Download high resolution version (876x1093, 294 KB) This in the medium resolution of the same image.

The original name it is Gray Wolf (Canis Lupus)

  1. I search here, Gray Wolf but I don't
  2. I know the wiki roole for the largest image
  • but 6MB isn't usefull nothing for the wall. Too large!

--Roger (Messages) 17:39, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

6 megabyte is very big, but a high resolution is, I believe, useful for purposes such as printing on paper. Thuresson


The photo of sexual acts or body parts are denied of the low.
In Sex Education or Anatomy Medicine the oral sexual act and vulva are paints.
Please, I propose it for a immidiatly ban.

Wikipedia Commons Immagine:

  • Vulva1.jpg
  • OPI.jpg

--Roger (Messages) 17:48, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

I can only suggest that you nominate these photos at Commons:Deletion requests. I'm afraid I can't delete these photos myself. Thuresson


After our discussion about it, I would like to know why Image:demiportr.jpg, a public domain photo of me, was deleted. I can't even see the page anymore to remember what its exact text content was. Sj 23:38, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

According to the image history, you tagged it with GFDL (not public domain) on July 14. Despite this, it was deleted by User:Breeze on July 19 with the comment "deletion request of July 11, no license". Thuresson 13:16, 2 August 2005 (UTC)


Hi Thuresson, I just uploaded an image (Image:Calcarius lapponicus.jpg), and didn't pay attention to the file-already-exist-do-you-want-to-overwrite warning I apparently got. Is there a way to revert and put my upload under a different name? //clumpsy Knuckles 06:21, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

OK, I changed back to the first version. You need to upload your photo again, but please change the file name first. Thuresson 13:16, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
Ok, thanks a bunch! //Knuckles 18:51, 2 August 2005 (UTC)


You claim that the copyright owner to this photo has licensed it under GFDL but at the it is clearly written: Keine Fotografien dieser Website sind ohne schriftliche Genehmigung zu verwenden.. Please explain why you still claim this is GFDL. Thuresson 13:43, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

@ Thuresson: The photographer of this picture told it in an email he addressed to me:

"ich habe vorhin ein Bild für den Wiki-Artikel über Mangelsdorff hochgeladen.

Das könntest du auf jeden Fall nutzen. Das Titelbild der Jazzpages möchte ich nicht in diesen Bereich geben, weil ich es damit komplett für die Nutzung im Netz freigeben müsste. " end quote

This means he had already uploaded this file to the German wikipedia and hereby gave his permission to use it for I told him I would upload the photo to wikimedia.commons.

--Wolf-Dieter 20:56, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

Deletion of Image:Flag_de-mecklenburg_vorpommern_service_300px.png[edit]

I just have seen that my image Image:Flag_de-mecklenburg_vorpommern_service_300px.png had been deleted, without even contacting me. This is not correct, as the rules for deletion requests state that one has to "Notify the uploader on their talk page" --Mevsfotw 20:31, 3 August 2005 (UTC)


I sent an email for them asking if the logo could be used (I explained about Wikipedia and its "image policy"). They answered "yes". I didn´t know if "CopyrightFreeUsed" was really the better TAG to use. If you want to change it, no problem :) Lucio Luiz 19:50, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

Venice Film Festival[edit]

I'm sorry, there's no permission. But I think the Image:Venice-62.jpg should not be deleted, it's just a poster! If we can upload some posters of a film, why cannot we do this?玉米^ō^麦兜 20:21, 5 August 2005 (UTC)


Thanks for sorting that out. I didn't even realize there was a larger version. Next time I'll be on the look out for that so thanks for warning me.Dejvid 23:36, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

Image:Picabia Hera 2.JPG[edit]

I took this file on [14] and the license isn't on wikicommons so I used another.

Flag of the Azores[edit]

The image is a public domain rendition of the official flag of the Azores. By act of the Azorean Parliament the flag of the Azores, in any of its renditions, cannot be appropriated by any individual or organization. So the picture shoul remain as it is. Thanks.Angrense 20:06, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

Info on clean-up required[edit]

Hi Thuresson, you marked File:250px-Old norse, ca 900.png for clean-up. Can you be a bit more specific? Laurens 15:22, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

Copy vio on Bedgelert stamp image ?[edit]

I have checked personally with the British Library philatelic department who have confirmed the following:- Reproduction of used stamps, although in principle might be considered in breach of copyright, there is nevertheless positive encouragement from the Royal Mail for the use of stamps as illustrations (probably because this helps sells more stamps). The view of the British Library confirmed that stamps are reproduced widely in printed and on-line media without payment of royalties or copyright acknowledgement. They noted that different rules applied to un-franked stamps whose reproduction might be viewed as counterfeiting. Velela 10:43, 9 August 2005 (UTC)


Hi, you have marked the image above with the {{incomplete license}} warning, and writen an alert to me on 2005-07-24. Please see User talk:En rouge for my response ; --En rouge 11:43, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

South Africa[edit]

I don't understand why the pictures are about to be deleted. The UN gives full license of their pictures unless it is for advertising (which I believe Commons is not). Why their license is no good? Indech 04:52, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

The copyright owner of any photo in WikiCommons must allow use in advertising. See Commons:Criteria for inclusion. Thuresson 11:45, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

So, you can delete since the copyright status i've got is not useful for WikiCommons. Thank you. Indech 12:19, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

Portuguese maps[edit]

Hi Thuresson! I would just like to inform you that the portuguese maps created by usuário:Jorge are now under the GNU FDL license. Here follows his statement from the 3rd of August where he agrees to such conditions.

"Olá a todos. Interrompo por breves instantes o meu retiro muito pouco espiritual para anunciar que falei finalmente com o meu amigo cujo mapa utilizei para fazer os meus mapas de localização dos municípios portugueses, e que ele deu o seu acordo a disponibilizar esses mapas sob licença GNU FDL. Assim, a partir de agora, esses mapas podem ser utilizados sem mais restrições que as que advém da GNU FDL na wikipédia portuguesa e fora dela. Peço aos utilizadores envolvidos nos outros projectos, em especial no Commons, que retransmitam esta mensagem para onde acharem útil. Quanto a mim, regresso ao retiro. Portem-se bem. --Jorge ◄ 21:21, 3 Agosto 2005 (UTC)"

Thx for the patience! Lusitana 06:46, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

Deletion request[edit]

Hi Thuresson. Could you please delete the file Image:HillaryRodhamClinton.jpg, since it has been moved to its better name Image:Hillary Rodham Clinton.jpg. I've done a check and it doesn't appear to be used on any other wikimedia projects, so the file is redundant. /Slarre 15:47, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

Article 38 of the Chilean Law 17.336 on Copyright[edit]

Hi Thuresson. I've seen in a discussion with Napoleon333 (here) you stated that As long as uploader do not provide more specific URL:s which prove images are in fact PD, they should be deleted.

I'd like to know if such a statement is still valid. If so, most of Auztrel's contributions (see here ) should be removed, shouldn't they? Can you please provide some information about the commons's interpretation of such a law. Many thanks in advance --Ecemaml 16:49, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

Thank you...[edit]

...for unblocking my university's ip addresses (it's a quite large university, having ~30'000 students, so blocking the whole place will cause some collateral damage ;) I hope there won't be more trouble with this user. I'll have an eye on his avtivities in de:wiki. --Magadan ?! 18:49, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

About my images[edit]

Hi, Thuresson! It's Auztrel. Well, I undesrtand your position, but I have some points that I would tell you. The photos I uploaded have been given by Josephs, who I met in his Fotolog [15]. If you see the image's size, you'll say that's imposible get those pictures from that web site. I met Joseph in MSN Messenger and he accepted to give me some pictures for Wikipedia. He promised that he'd make his own logo for a copyright tag that I should create, for using the pictures. That's when I read in the Chilean Citizen's Code about the article n°XXX, who alows me to publish the photos while the picture's owner give me to authorization to upload them.

I'm waiting for his logo, I have already created a Copyright sign specially for him. I'd like you to give me seven days to get his own logo and the remove the images and I personally upload in es.wikipedia. What do you think ? --Auztrel 19:43, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

Re: Image:Freebsd.png[edit]

Hi, I am looking throught the Category:Unknown and found this photo, that you tagged as unknown although it has a CC license. Perhaps the CC license is incorrect, could you clarify? Thuresson 23:15, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

I'm not sure that uploader’s authorship gone beyond screenshotting of Same situation with Image:NetBSD.png. Additionally FreeBSD daemon image is copyrighted (see for details). --EugeneZelenko 01:01, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
OK, I will include it in a forthcoming deletion request. Thuresson

På commons oxå?[edit]

Där ser man alltså.. så du hänger här på Commons oxå? Konstantin från sv.wikipedia här.... --Konstantin 21:02, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

Jag är allestädes närvarande i tid och rum... Thuresson 21:04, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
Ett litet tips är att låsa den där sida (Picture of the day) ... annars kommer knäppon och äckel att fortsätta lägga upp äckelbilder och som kommer vara synligt för hundratals surfare innan det rättas till.... --Konstantin 21:08, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
Kanske, de byts ju varje dag så då måste någon tänka på det dagligen. Däremot brukar jag alltid skrivskydda Wikimedias logotyper som ofta utsätts för vandalisering. Thuresson 21:11, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

Images from en[edit]

Hi, I replied and asked a question on my talk page. NickGorton 00:38, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

As time goes by....[edit]

Dear Thuresson, you wrote: None of these photos have a verifiable source. You also claim that they may have usage restrictions. Photos who can not be used by anybody for any purpose must not be uploaded. Please add the URL of your source to the photos. Images with incomplete information may be deleted. Thuresson 21:40, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

Adding the URL is pretty useless, because they might chance in a few days. I wrote down the source and the license. This must be enough. -- Stahlkocher 08:38, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

Photos Bretagne[edit]

Dear Thuresson, please tell me: Why did you remove the category "photo" from all may images? They are photos or do you think I painted them with "Paint Brush" or "Corel Draw". I'm not able to understand this action. Please let me know, why!


--S.moeller 19:20, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

First of all, I would appreciate if messages to me are left here, there is no need to send me emails unless I do not respond. Secondly, the category "Photo" should preferrably be used by media relating to the art and technology of producing photographs, not your holiday snapshots. Thuresson 01:55, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

Sorry for sending the Enmail. I searched the fastest way to communicate. But to the category "Photo": I'm not able to recognize, why the photos I can see now under the catgeory "photo" are different from my photos. If art and technology producing photographs is need, then you have to remove the category photo from all of them - perhaps except 3-5 images. --S.moeller 06:35, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

Image:Franz Jägerstätter.jpg[edit]

Hi Thuresson! You asked: I was quite surprised to see that the Austrian Postoffice allows their stamps to be uploaded, copied freely and used as anybody like? Actually, do you have any source that austrian stamps can legally be licensed under GFDL?
At Wikipedia:Briefmarken was a long discussion about this problem. The opinions were quite different.
At Legal information the Austrian Post AG writes: Any commercial use of the information or data (such text, pictures, etc.) requires the prior consent of Österreichische Post AG. I am not sure, if this is enough to put pictures of Austrian stamps in the Wikipedia. -- Hreid 18:37, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

avenger truck image...[edit]

I replied on my talk page on en.wikipedia, but requiring people to watch across wikis seems wrong, so I'm replying here too. I realized commons didn't take fair use when the templates weren't working. I uploaded the rest to en, and I've tagged this image as speedy (which I think I can do as the original uploader). Thanks. Wikibofh 04:51, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

Argentine money[edit]

I did ask the argentine central bank a long time ago and never received an answer.

What concerns the images of Ron Wise: Of course he does not own the copyright of the money designs. But he sure owns the copyright of the scans. In the German Wikipedia his images are tagged as public domain, as he allowed to use them like that (source: [16]). Please also refer to page de:Diskussion:ISO 4217. A huge amount of money images is used in the German Wikipedia from that source without any problems, although in the German Wikipedia the copyright rules are observed quite strictly. (See: [17])

So I do not see any problem to use these images in Commons.

With best regards

--ALE! 06:44, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

Image:Isola Madre.jpg[edit]

Hi, I added the source (also on the other pictures I uploaded yesterday) and removed the template, hope it's ok. :-D Sorry for the inconvenience, thank you. Ciao :-) --Civvi 06:57, 19 August 2005 (UTC)


seems I managed to forget adding a license to some pics, thx for the notice :) If you happen to find more, in general my pics are cc-by-sa and own work. Henna 08:46, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

James Blish[edit]

Answer to you question on my talk page. regards, Elly 08:56, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

Zion Map[edit]

The source of the map was the National park service as indicated in the description. I made it a little bit clearer. --Huebi 10:09, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

Logo LG[edit]

Please see my explanation on your request here. Thanks for your interest. keikomi  18:51, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

Image:Elath Eilat Israel Strand Hotel datafox.jpg[edit]

OK, let me tell you a little story. I know this user from the IRC. I also know, that this user contributes small scale images from the original images. I will see to it that the 1% I might be mistaken is solved. I will get in touch with datafox. --Paddy 02:25, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

The image has no history. It is bit by bit the same as the one on de. Since it will be deleted on de it does not really make sense to link back on de ;-) It would presumably be better to make a clearer statement though like: "user datafox is the author of this image and contributes them in smaller size under the GFDL to WP..."

Pepper picture[edit]

The difference....umm..well..Ok, I was just playing around with the gimp and I tried to see if I couldn't sharpen it a bit. I was just trying to help cleaning up the images in the category but obviously I'm no expert. I didn't realized that I had increased the filesize so much, my apologies. I will revert the changes now. Thank you for being patient. --Orgullomoore 04:47, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

Image moved from WikiPedia to Commons[edit]

For the french version of the article "Walter Ong" I had to move the picture from the english wikipedia to commons. I don't know how I should deal with the copyright banner.

Could tell me the way ? Thanks ! Graphophile 09:55, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

If you mean en:Image:Walter-ong.jpg you can't upload it to WikiCommons since it is published as fair use. You need to find a photo that can be used by anybody for any purpose. Thuresson 14:16, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

Deleted image[edit]

I just logged into my Commons account for the first time in many moons and found that Image:Arhangelsky Sobor (Kreml).JPG has been deleted. I can't find the discussion in the deletion archives.

However, I did find the discussion for Image:Dining fly (tent).png. You claimed that it has no license, whereas I'd public-domained it a year before.

I've watchlisted your talk page, so you can reply here. --Smack (talk) 17:53, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

You uploaded Image:Arhangelsky Sobor (Kreml).JPG on January 13 without either a source or copyright info, all you wrote was "new image". On May 15 one user tagged the photo as "unknown". On August 6, it was one of 50 images that I listed for deletion. The request is still available at Commons:Deletion requests (see "Unknown license #20" on August 6). I see that you were notified the same day and had time until August 18 to correct the situation. Thuresson 00:35, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
I see. That was a batch upload; I must have forgotten to go back and license it. I'll fix that right away. --Smack (talk) 16:56, 25 August 2005 (UTC)



I see your talk page is filling quickly. Maybe you need a break ;-) Fred Chess 15:19, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

Google Talk[edit]

Ok, I will`nt do.
Thanks.Triku 17:38, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

Image:Jamia Mosque, East Ham.jpg[edit]

Hi, after getting of the shock of "he wants to delete my picture! what an affront to my pride!" I realized that it was my copy of Image:Jamia Masjid, East Ham.jpg which I thought I had put up for deletion because of improper naming... feel free to delete... in fact, I think it should (at least per wikipedia policy) be speedy since it's a duplicate that the creator has disowned. Thanks for the notice :) gren 22:23, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

Computer and video game screenshots[edit]

Hi! The computer and video game screenshots I uploaded are original images created and saved by me and uploaded for use in game articles. I am checking with Tilted Mill Entertainment to confirm whether their copyright has any issue here. Please don't delete any more images until I get their response tomorrow. Thanks! -- Sitearm | Talk 13:28, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

Ok it's fixed and I added the correct tags to the images. Thanks! -- Sitearm | Talk 13:41, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

Got your further note and deletion notices. Tilted Mill has advised me they are researching their stance on this (they like the articles). I've provided them the link to Commons:Licensing. As a fallback, I have re-posted the images into the US commons with fair use tags. I would prefer to keep things in the International commons, but will have to wait for word from Tilted Mill. Thanks! -- Sitearm | Talk 04:41, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

Different Rules for different Wikipedias?[edit]

Hi Thuresson

I don't understand whi you deleted images on common for © reasons when the same images are still in use on the de or fr wikipedia. I move sometimes images from a national wiki to commons when I use the same image on als or ln wiki with the whole © notice from the wiki where I pick the image. Are there different rules about the © on common then on de or fr wiki? —Eruedin 11:28, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

Yes, they are, due to different copyrigths in each country. Sometimes fair use is ok, but for Germany its not. In Germany it is allowed to take photos frompublic places ("liberty for panoramic view), in france it is not. And there many others differences. Images in Commons must fulfill evrything for each country, so to have a fairuse image in en:wikipedia is ok, in commons it is not. Ta have a pictore of the louvre in de:wikipedia is ok, in commons it is not ok, case of french copyrights.
Huebi 13:04, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

Remember that all images on WikiCommons need to have a copyright tag and a source who can verify that the copyright tag is correct. This was why "Image:Preservatif-emploi.jpg" was deleted, you claimed it was public domain, but didn't leave a source. Remember that all photos on WikiCommons must be made freely available to anybody for any purpose!
You have uploaded Image:Patrice lumumba.jpg, but the copyright owner only allows non-commercial use. Remember that people must be allowed to use the photos as they like, including selling them for money. Please see Commons:Licensing for further details. Thuresson 13:21, 31 August 2005 (UTC)


hi, I have done some of the pictures my self. how can I modify the file source to show this fact. --Tarawneh 05:06, 2 September 2005 (UTC)


I notice you've been protecting the picture of the day. Great work! I just created {{mprotected}} as a copy of w:Template:Mprotected, to be applied to the description pages. Cheers, dbenbenn | talk 18:00, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

Deletion request[edit]

Hi, the request was for the picture which has been overwriten by User:Kolossos. If u look at the history you'll see that an other picture (the same as Image:Limenitis populi-02.jpg) is underneed. This has been done after I requested the deletion. I'm not sure what the policy is for this kind of situation. Delete it and re-upload? or just let it be. Perhaps you would like to advice User:Kolossos to take notice before overwriting other pictures... Regards, Svdmolen 22:11, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

Metro de Santiago[edit]

(excuse my english)

Hi, the pictures of Metro de Santiago, which belongs to that fotolog, the autor of the pictures and publish on the fotolog, gives the permission to User:Auztrel, to upload below the copyright license what he want.

How i can make to clarify the licence?, because he (the fotologger) don't matter what licence if use in his photos on Wikipedia, User:Auztrel ask to a fotologger if can be on a public domain, and he answer "yes, i don't matter, just upload it if you want".

About: "That is however not enough, he/she must allow anybody to use it anywhere for any purpose", i which say what the fotologger allows me to upload it, but everyone can use it, no only for mi use, all the Wikipedia can use it. I should make the corrections on the image description page?, tell me what steps i will make.

Greetings. --Antoine 23:14, 3 September 2005 (UTC)


You didn't add the deletion request for this image on the appropriate page which means I can't justifiy my actions. --Voyager 08:43, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

Please, it takes 2 hours to notify 50 users that their photos are up for deletion. Thuresson 08:45, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
No problem, I'll take a look later. --Voyager 08:48, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

Swedish government photos[edit]

You reverted my edits on Image:Gunnar lund foto av pawel flato.jpg from Template:SwedishGovernment. Correct me if I'm wrong, but weren't these pictures once deleted from commons because the license is not compatible with commons licensing? Or are these pictures now suddenly allowed here? /Slarre 22:52, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

The photos from The Swedish Government official homepage were indeed deleted because of licensing (only non-commercial use during the government's term of office). This photo however is from the official webpage of the Foreign Office whose terms are more liberal. Web page [18] states that the photos may be used freely. Neither is the embassador a member of the government. Thuresson 09:56, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

Image:Megumuishiguro bogota06.jpg[edit]

Hi. Sorry. I forgot to put the license again. These are part of a series of pictures I took at an event. --Julianortega 23:51, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

ref.Img.Lavalleja juan antonio.jpg[edit]

Hi. This is a part of an oil canvas made by Jean Philippe Goulue (died before 100 years), exhibited in Museo Histórico Nacional and is taked from, with botton of the Treinta y Tres's flag, this image also is including in scholars texts from 1900 till today. Please if possible delete the sames JPG in 720 kB and 28 KB, Thaks.


Category:San Francisco, California[edit]


can you please delete this category? It contianed only one picture and i moved it to Category:San Francisco, and now the other is empty and obsolete. Or do i have really have to walk through the delete-dusciussion-procedure? --Huebi 07:12, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

If there was an issue with copyright or licensing, you could just ask instead of putting it up for deletion and then assigning an license which I have not agreed to. Dysprosia 09:59, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

People shouldn't assume that images are automatically licensed under the GFDL, and especially not on Commons. Use Template:Own work in future circumstances such as this. Dysprosia 10:06, 17 September 2005 (UTC)
Don't blame others for your mistakes. I had two options: to tag the photo or delete it. Appreciate that people put some effort in tidying up your faux pas. Thuresson

Soccer logos[edit]

Hi. It's true that some soccer logos may be protected by copyrigth. However, that depends of what kind of copyrigth do you mean. Wikimedia cannot create a rigth where there is not. The teams in Peru do not have a copyrigth over their logos, thats the reason of why there are so many in use and all of them are diferent. The rigth that actually exists forbid the use of a logo that has been drawn by other person because of his author rigths. The club itself doesnot have the meanings of avoiding other people to draw and use publicy the logo. Surely i understand that, talking, for example, of Manchester United, the club has a rigth over its logo. a Copyrigth given by the english law and recognized worldwide and protected everywhere, including commons. ¿Do you think that english law (for example) can give the peruvian clubs a copyright to their logos? I can't give you a prove of something that does not exist. The peruvian clubs doesn't have a rigth over their logos. ¿Don't you believe me? Take a check in the web, you will find so many logos of each team and many of them are different although they are the same logo of the same team. If there was a copyrigth, all logos will be just the same, the only official logo of the club and the item respect of the copyrigth exists. Those images are of my own, drawn and fixed by me. In any case, if they had any copyrigth it's mine and i allowed them to commons with GFDL. Hope you understand me. Say, as you can see, my english is terrible. I've lost a lot of skill and hardly can make myself clear. If you feel that something that i have said here is unpolite or sounds like an if i were an spoiled guy, give for granted that that wasn't my intencion. I tried to write it as friendly as i can, i assure you. Grettings. Chalisimo5 14:52, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

Thank you, I will carefully consider what you wrote before doing anything. Thuresson 14:55, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

sorry for licence lack on my pictures, correction done Jeffdelonge 07:54, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

Image:Johan remkes.jpg[edit]

Hi Thuresson, i added some copyright information to the Johan Remkes image. The page that i originally provided didn't provide any copyright information, but the site that is hosting it (the Ministery of the Interior) does provide copyright information (see the Images's page).

--Husky 23:02, 22 September 2005 (UTC)


Hello Thuresson, we do have a Spanish administrator here since april, it's Sanbec. Anyway, if you think I can be useful as an administrator as well, I'll accept the challenge. Cheers Anna 20:37, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

idw Image:Siegen Leimbachstadion-Logo Krombacher.jpg[edit]

Hi, thanks for your idw, but I put it by myself on the deletion requests page (September 19) :) --Caterham 18:58, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

Please supervise voting[edit]

IMHO you must supervise the voting Commons:Administrators/Requests_and_votes/Anna.

Please see:

From A Coruña 22:54, 23 September 2005 (hist) (diff) A Coruña (redirect to La Coruña) Category:A Coruña 22:48, 23 September 2005 (hist) (diff) Category:A Coruña (redirect to category La Coruna (Too many categories for the same place)) (top) Catalunya 21:58, 21 July 2005 Dbenbenn m (Reverted edits by Anna to last version by Joan) 02:21, 21 July 2005 Anna (delete, redundant) Platja de la Barceloneta 01:41, 21 July 2005 (hist) (diff) Platja de la Barceloneta (Platja de la Barceloneta moved to Playa de la Barceloneta: the introduction is in catalanian and english, therefore the title must be in castillian) 01:41, 21 July 2005 (hist) (diff) m Playa de la Barceloneta (Platja de la Barceloneta moved to Playa de la Barceloneta) Eivissa 00:42, 20 July 2005 (hist) (diff) m Eivissa (Eivissa moved to Ibiza) Ibiza 07:55, 25 September 2005 Joanjoc (Ibiza moved to Eivissa: Prefered name for the city/island, as seen on the oficial website; Not NPOV en language policy


Hace unas noches que estuve borrando la categoría Comunidades autónomas de España y la subcategoría Illes Balears, puesto que ya hay una Category:Autonomous communities of Spain llena de comunidades y una Category:Islas Baleares, además de reunir y organizar las imágenes de las islas que estaban desperdigadas. Esta noche, entre un usuario Joan y dos o tres IPs (probablemente el mismo usuario) estaban creadas de nuevo, además de artículos repetidos con los mismos contenidos en Minorca, Menorca, Mallorca, Majorca y una Eivissa que he trasladado a Ibiza. He arreglado el desaguisado, enviado lo que sobraba a [[: Category:Candidates for speedy deletion|speedy deletion]] y dejado un mensaje a User talk:, pero no sé si servirá de algo. Te aviso de todo el lío por si vuelve a las andadas y tú tienes más argumentos que esgrimir. Anna 01:56, 20 July 2005 (UTC) Category:Illes Balears in View deleted pages 01:00, 20 July 2005 . . Anna (delete, there was already a Islas Baleares category, no need for another) 00:07, 13 July 2005 . . Anna (content moved to :Category:Islas Baleares) Lleida View deleted pages Lleida 17:56, 23 April 2005 . . Anna (Lleida moved to Lérida) Lérida 08:55, 22 June 2005 Mormegil (Lérida moved to Lleida)

Native and official names of places in Spain:

Edits in voting page:

Votes are for Commons's administrator or for spanish wikipedia administrator?

Thanks. --Prevert(talk) 07:04, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

Thanks about comment of Creative Commons logo. I got that confusion from en Wikipedia, I have seen is corrected now. Toniher 11:36, 29 September 2005 (UTC)


Hi Thuresson! I made a mistake by uploading this photo, wich is the wrong version of the one i wished to upload. I already uploaded de right version and i would like the former version (Image:Silves 1.JPG) to be deleted on my request. I dont know if {{delete}} is the right tag for this case, i didnt find anything so specific in the speedy deletion guidelines. Could you please see to the deletion of the file? Thanks a lot! Lusitana 18:36, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

I have deleted the file now. Thuresson 03:52, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

Thx! Lusitana 07:18, 30 September 2005 (UTC)


I have added copyright an source data. You might want to chack that I have included everything I need to and not left anything out. I'll let you remove the deletion request templates if you are happy with it. Adz 02:30, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

A block totally uncalled for[edit]

Hi. I have been contacted by User:Zivax whom you have blocked for 2 weeks (TWO weeks!) because he made mistakes by uploading fair use pictures on Commons. PLEASE do consider that this person does NOT speak English, and is new to the project, and maybe needs a bit of help rather than be blocked before he can amend himself. If you need someone to address him in French, there are many of us here who could do that, and I, for one, am daily on Commons. Please consider learning the whole purpose of Commons:Babel and learn to look for the contributors there who can help you. There are enough admins/natives for most of the main languages not to take rash decisions like the one you took without trying a mediation in the person's language. Feel free to leave a message on my talk page should a French speaking contributor pose problems again, rather than block them for 2 weeks with just leaving an unfriendly message on their talk page in a language they don't understand. I am going to unblock this user. Cheers. notafish }<';> 16:04, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

I naturally assume that anybody using an American web service will understand English to a degree unless there is some evidence to believe otherwise. It is careless at best to upload photos without either description, source or copyright status. I would suggest that this user adds a {{user en-0}} to his/her user page. Thuresson 21:41, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
Your assumption, if I may say, is completely against the whole precepts of what Commons is all about. It careless at best on THIS wiki to expect everyone to speak English, and rather impolite to hold against anyone the fact that they don't speak a language. I will just remind you what is written on the main page: used in pages of any Wikimedia project, which, unless I don't understand it right, implies that Commons is an international project. I surely hope that were I to contribute anything on sv: people would be kinder to me than what you have been to this user. As to putting {{user en-0}} on their talk page, this is not something that comes naturally to anyone in the first place, especially if they are new contributors. You however, could have tried and helped, which you did not do, and which I find totally unacceptable for an admin. Yes, our job here is not always fun, maybe even less fun than being an admin on other projects, but helping people understand what is going on is part of our job and participates in improving the sustainability of Commons as a whole, and ensure that it will not leave anyone on the side while it grows. notafish }<';> 13:40, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
I think you have misunderstood something - Zivax does understand English. He has obviously written to somebody in English to ask for permission to use the foto at Image:Ethel Lina White.jpg. I know people upload fair use photos all the time but number and scope that Zivax has uploaded can not simply be ignored. The fact that Zivax uploads GFDL photos without source or name of the photographer pales in comparison
I don't think I need to babysit the users when the rules are quite selfevident. For example, MediaWiki:Uploadtext/fr is quite clear:
Tous les fichiers téléchargés doivent être distribués sous une licence libre (voir la liste des licences compatibles). (Par exemple Domaine public (public domain) ou Licence GNU)!
Tous les fichiers téléchargés doivent pouvoir faire l'objet d'une utilisation commerciale
Les fichiers sans indication de licence, portant une licence erronée ou ne mentionnant pas leur(s) source(s) seront effacés sans préavis !
Wouldn't that at least give a user cause to hesitate? Blocking this user isn't different from blocking users who upload Metallica posters, album covers or movie screenshots. Thuresson 15:48, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

A question of identity[edit]

Hi Thuresson. I've sent you a mail regarding this issue. Regards --Ecemaml 08:48, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

Photo: Venezuela MER FR Orbit05318 20030307 20030324.jpg[edit]

Hi, Greetings from Venezuea. Im almost sure (like 95% hehe) that the image is from NASA, so, doesn't have Copyright. How can i avoid the delete? can you chage the license info, because i don't know (quite new here). Thanks for all. Venex 16:08, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

Hello again, im sorry for the photo, i was confused, i´ll replace it with a photo from NASA, thanks for all and my apologizes for the bother. Venex 01:06, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

Hello again, i have found a page related to the NASA, but i don't know if the photo are "Public Domain", do you know about it?, the site is: The Gateway to Astronaut Photography of Earth. Thanks for the help. --Venex 18:32, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

Yes, that website looks very interesting and it seems the photos are public domain! Thuresson 19:29, 15 October 2005 (UTC)


For the buttons and your confidence on me. Regards Anna 21:16, 5 October 2005 (UTC)


I reposted that picture. I got express authorization from righteous babe records to use it. the details are in image:AniDiFranco.jpg. Is that good enough? if not, sorry for uploading the picture again --Lacrymology 03:48, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

File:Couple espagnol devant une auberge.jpg[edit]


I have a question on your deletion of this file. I was wondering if it was in the public domain because it was painted in 1900. (See Picasso,Period 1889-1900,Fourth on the first row). Every painting before 1925 isn't in the public domain ? (and so is there a problem for the other paintings on this page ?)

Could you answer me at fr:Poppy ?


Thanks for your answer. It makes more sense.
Poppy 18:12, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

Seal of the University of Szeged[edit]

Hi! This image can't be used in the commons. This seal is only allowed to use on official documents and on visiting cards of university employees. So it have to deleted.

But now I've found other Images from the same uploader with unknown copyright status (like Image:Szeged-pantheon.JPG and Image:Szeged-napja-unnepseg1.jpg). The source-website ([19]) says these pictures are public domain (they can be used without borders). Can you correct this? Thanks --AlphaCentauri 15:25, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

Image:Ritalinad.jpg and Image:Ritalin in MBD.jpg[edit]

Thuresson: According to argentian law 11723, graphic works take automatically public domain status 25 years after been published for first time. And Argentina is my jurisdiction. That material was not only distributed in Argentina, but it did here. It was published in Physician´s Desk Reference among many other medical journals.

By the way, I´m not personally interested in pictures divertion/trafic. So, that´s the info I can provide. If it´s not enough, just delete that images, but please do not tell me that my text makes no sense: be civil. --Octavio L 21:16, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

If the photos are public domain, why did you tag them as GFDL? GFDL is not public domain, and claiming both makes no sense. Thuresson 05:22, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
That is a reasonable answer, Thuresson. Please next time, try to be cooperative from the beggining and keep good faith. I have written many articles in Spanish Wikipedia, but ignore particular rules for images and legal issues. I sent our controversial photos for deletion, because I was angry (a.k.a. impulsivity). But would like to know what template may I use for their licence status? What data may I add? If you can help on that, it will be appreciated. --Octavio L 05:55, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
Just add {{PD}} and also that the photos come from an Argentine publication and that they are public domain by Argentine law. If somebody else wants to know more about Argentine copyright they can read this page. Hopefully you will not get impolite questions again. Thuresson 06:02, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
Thanks :o) --Octavio L 06:26, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

Image:View of Honiara.jpg[edit]

I changed the license on the image after consulting with the owner of the website. I included this information in the description. I hope everything is now okay. Vvulto 09:34, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the effort you put into this. Thuresson

Re: Deleting Bernstein's photos[edit]

Hi, I thought they were available, as I have found one of them stated as PD on one of the wikies. And understood to be so stated on the source website. Are they not fair use? –wiki-vr 22:08, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

Image:Västerbotten county.png[edit]

Please do delete it. I would never intentionally upload a fairuse photo. I must have misread the template, or just taken a look at it and becuase of it similarity in appearance with the {{gfdl}}, assumed it was GFDL. Thanks,--Orgullomoore 20:57, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

Images "Veracruz..." and "Novaiguacu..."[edit]

I thought I had answered before the question about the first image. Sorry if I forgot. The images are from the site of Rio de Janeiro's Football Federation, like is write in the descriptions. I sent an email to them moths ago asking about put the logos in Wikipedia and they said it's OK. PS: Sorry about my English. I read English withouyt problems, but I don't write very well :) Lucio Luiz 15:11, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

OK, who gave the permission (name, email), and what does the permission include? Use on Wikipedia or unrestricted commercial use? Thuresson 19:51, 21 October 2005 (UTC)


Please can you take back those pictures? They are my pictures. I made it whit my photoaparate. You can see me on those pictures.

--Pokrajac 22:51, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

All photos on WikiCommons must have a source and a copyright tag. You uploaded the photos on August 17 without a description, a source or a copyright tag. You were notified that the photos could be deleted unless you did something. Since you didn't, the photos were deleted in September. Photos can not be undeleted. Thuresson 22:56, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

Photos can be undeleted, just like articles. I now that, because I am admin on Serbian WIkipedia. --Pokrajac 23:22, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

The image description page can be undeleted, the image itself can not. If you are an administrator you should know better than to upload photos without any copyright information. Thuresson 23:24, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

If you know Serbian, you should know that Jamarko3.JPG means Memarko.JPG. --Pokrajac 23:26, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

re: Image:Howard-scott.gif[edit]

Hi, I looked at the page and found the copyright. Since I can't find a tag that states only copying the image is allowed I just copy and pasted the notice and made a link to the webpage. I left the 'nosource' tag for you or someone else to remove if everything is in order.


Hi. I'm zeitus I'm trying to get the things you asked me. I hope I have news for mondat (28-11-04)

22:54 UTC
Welcome to my talk page.

I always enjoy answering questions or taking part in a debate between users who respect each other. Archives: 1


Image:Cadro M.Moratal GFDL.jpg[edit]

M. Moratal is the artist--Lmbuga 17:55, 23 October 2005 (UTC). He is a Galician artist = a artist of Galicia (Spain)

  • (Pardon, I can understand english, but I speak very bad) I Think that I can answer you: My sister have this picture in her house. I don't know the artist.--Lmbuga 18:21, 24 October 2005 (UTC)


If this image (deleted by you from Wikimedia Commons on October 24 2005), named Image:veja_28092005_n1924.jpg, is a copyright violation, why this one, which was uploaded to Wikimedia Commons on February 1 2005 is not? Both are modified pictures of a magazine, so the same deletion rule should apply to both pictures.

Also, can I upload this picture (veja_28092005_n1924.jpg) on the English Wikipedia as fair use? Regards, Carioca 04:06, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps they are both copyvios. You should definitely upload it to English Wikipedia as "fair use", good choice of picture for en:Brazilian football match-fixing scandal. Thuresson 21:09, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
Thanks, I will upload the image with the magazine_cover tag. Is that ok?

Regads, Carioca 21:23, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

Yuan Tseh Lee[edit]

hi, thank you for the message. i just sent a request to LBL for permissions, they shoud respond within two weeks and hopefully they say yes. --R.O.C 05:46, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

Category Photo[edit]

Dear Thuresson,

some time ago you removed the Category:Photo from my photos I shot in the Bretagne in summer 2005. When I look now under this category I find hundreds of photos of Barcelona and other things, which have nothing to do with the "Art of Photography" (so you told to me, when I discussed removing the category with you).

Please tell me the difference

--S.Möller 08:08, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

There is no Category:Photo anymore, it was amalgamated by somebody with Category:Photos. Thuresson
Sorry - we misunderstood another. You didn't remove the category. You removed the text „Category:Photo“ (or „Category:Photos“ - I'm not able to remember exactly) from my Images of the Bretagne. And now I find many photos of Barcelona in the Category „Photos“ and they have nothing to do with the „Art of Photography“.


I am afraid that I don't. When I uploaded it I thought that the copyright of mugshots by the US police was all owned by the US government, but that is apparently not the case. This mugshot was made by the Florida police, and I don't know if work owned by the state of Florida is public domain, so please delete it. The same thing is also the case with another mugshot that I uploaded because of this mistake: Image:Tysonmug1.jpg. The copyright of that photo is apparently owned by the state of Arizona, and again I don't know if it's public domain, so that I guess should be deleted too. -- Igiveup 20:22, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

Thank you, I guess that mugshots of people arrested for federal crimes (serious criminality) would be PD. Thuresson 20:59, 30 October 2005 (UTC)


Hej Thuresson.

Category:Sweden är, tycker jag, ganska rörig. Jag funderar på att strukturera upp den lite. Vad tror du om detta, och vet du om det finns något allmänt sätt som andra länders kategorier är strukturerade?

Fred Chess 08:20, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

Uploading war...[edit]

Hi! I'm so sorry to notice you that here is a current uploading war started by User:Fuster on Image:Land of Valencia official flag.png. He is uploading again and again a version of a flag of the en:Land of Valencia wich it doesn't complies with the official proportions, which is 1:2, as it's shown in official valencian government and official buildings, but this user is over-uploading a flag with 2:3 proportions.

I think that the best way is to discuss with him, but he gained to be considered as troll in the Wikipedia in Spanish, because of its edit wars and permanent conflict in all things related with valencian subjects. You may to try talk him, but I think that the best way is to protect the image file. Thanks in advance. --Joanot Martorell 10:10, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

PD: You can see an example of its proportions here, in a tower on Valencian Government building.

He has uploaded another one: Image:Land of Valencia official flag1.png. I've put in description page a redundant template. --Joanot Martorell 13:18, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

Martorell flag is different than valencian flag[edit]

Hello, Thuresson, how are you? i want to inform you that the flag of Valencian Autonomous Region (In Spanish Language: Comunidad Valenciana) that Martorell user uploaded have not correct proportions.

I know very well that official governement proportions of Valencian flag are different than Martorell flag proportions. Is different.

You can see four examples of the correct flag proportions at these urls:

Nice to meet you Thuresson. --Fuster 03:56, 1 November 2005 (UTC)


Hi, I got this pic from english wikipedia, and I've not change it :) Mosesofmason 09:23, 1 November 2005 (UTC)


Please delete the referred photo immediately.

--Dore chakravarty 19:35, 1 November 2005 (UTC)


Received reply from relevant WEB publisher as under:

Original Message -----

From: K S Sudhakar To: ; Sent: Wednesday, November 02, 2005 10:47 PM Subject: RE: Copyright-

The photographs used in KYM site are taken by the Executive trustee of KYM and he has permitted its usage for KYM website.


Above information with the following data given with the uploading, does it satisfy the requirements of WIKI please?

Photo taken from web site: and maintained by which allows saving and emailing etc. No copy right is mentioned. Hence assumed no copyrights exist.

--Dore chakravarty 20:46, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

I'm afraid you need a permission from the photographer that anybody can use the photo for any purpose, otherwise it must be deleted. You may be allowed to save the file or email it to a friend but that does not give you permission to publish the photo or upload it to a web page. Thuresson 10:29, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

Brookie note[edit]

Thanks for your help ! :) Brookie 21:11, 6 November 2005 (UTC)


I have blanked the photograph pending deletion as the copyright is not clear to me still.

--Dore chakravarty 19:31, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

No entiendo porque has borrado fotos, unas no tenian copyright, estaban echas por mí, y por cierto haber si te molestas en escribirme en español y lo aprendes. Adiós Thuresson

--Beethoven 22:31, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

Adolfo Suarez.jpg[edit]

Sorry, you're right. I'm a newbie, and did this carelessly. ¿Is there any way of changing that? Cheers. --[[User:OrlandoSM|OrlandoSMhistmsg]] 07:57, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Radera en bild[edit]

Hej! Vill du vara vänlig och radera Image:Penis glans foreskin.jpg. Den är helt klart stötande. /E70 03:37, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Tyvärr får jag inte radera en bild bara för att den är stötande. Anmäl istället bilden på Commons:Deletion requests. Thuresson 14:20, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Vg. ändra svenskspråkiga länk till Village Pump[edit]

Till Commons:Bybrunnen. // Fred Chess 14:55, 9 November 2005 (UTC)


Tjenare! I see you removed some {{money}} tags that I had applied. Not offended, just curious, but what was wrong with it? Thanks --Eddi 11:01, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

The template was nominated for deletion at Commons:Deletion requests#Template:Money in October since WikiCommons do not allow fair use. Thuresson 11:16, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
Then I should perhaps reconsider the use of this template at the images I uploaded myself. They are all PD as I see it but are not explicitly marked as such. By the way, can we somehow distinguish the fair use and PD images within the money group, and only delete fair use? --Eddi 11:32, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
I removed the template from a few photos of Norwegian coins yesterday who were all PD anyway. If the photos have a source it should be possible to find a proper copyright tag. Otherwise the tag {{subst:nld}} would have to be used and the uploader asked about the source. Thuresson 11:37, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

Yes, according to the summary they were PD, so when you took away the {{money}} tags you should have marked them as {{PD}} instead of {{unknown}}. When you mark an image as unknown, the original contributor shouldn't have the sole responsibility to clarify the status, I think you have an obligation yourself to help clarify. --Eddi 22:26, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

You're right and I do my best. I am able to clarify the copyright status of the Norwegian coins - the Norges Bank claim copyright on the design on its bills and coins so the photos here on WikiCommons will have to be deleted. ( "PD is assumed" is incorrect, I'm afraid. Thuresson 23:19, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
The bank has the copyright, but anyone is allowed to copy and/or modify the images, as long as the copies or modifications are not used as money. This restriction comes from monetary law, not copyright law. I read it as copyrighted free use. That is, I was wrong about PD, but the images are free enough for the Commons. --Eddi 23:56, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
Photos on WikiCommons must have a license that allow any kind of modification. The Norges Bank do not allow modification, they do not allow publishing in scale 1:1 or any change that is insulting to the designer. Thuresson 01:55, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

There are tons of images on Commons that may be copied and/or modified freely, but with restrictions on practical use according to law that isn't copyright law. Flags, insignia, coats of arms, etc. Those have been discussed in various forums and allowed on Commons. I don't think you would delete all flags, and the same should go for money. --Eddi 09:56, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Which law beside the Norwegian copyright law do you mean? Thuresson 10:34, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
For flags, e.g. the flag law and the flag regulations. For money, e.g. the central bank and money law and the rules for use of banknote and coin designs (the one you cited). These are not copyright laws but imply restrictions on the practical use of the objects or images. As to the lawfulness of modification, the latter rules state, "Use of illustrations of Norwegian coin or banknote designs shall not be offensive to the originators. This means, among other things, that original coin or banknote designs shall not be manipulated." but next, "By reproduction of coin or banknote designs it is required that the reproduction is such that it cannot be mistaken for valid currency." This implies that modification of size, resolution or appearance is actually required for presentations in public. While offensive manipulation may not be allowed, modification is. Do we have to allow offensive manipulation for an image to appear on Commons? --Eddi 12:27, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
You wrote that the Norges bank own the copyright. The copyright owner do not allow anybody to use the design for any purpose. Period. Thuresson 16:23, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

My point is, there is little difference between these restrictions and those imposed on many insignia that are well established on Commons. I suggest you also delete all flags and coats of arms that are less than 70 years old. --Eddi 01:03, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Image:Abdullah öcalan.jpg[edit]

Hi. Image Image:Abdullah öcalan.jpg is from [20]. This image was uploaded by user:Gerry Lynch with {{PD}} licence. Lzur 22:02, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Vedr Grb Kragujevac[edit]

Hej Thuresson Du skriver at det inte er den samme bild på den serbiske side!!?? Hvis du tittar bedre, så vil du se at det er eksakt det samme bild, blot formindsket i storelsen. Source er også notereet med henvisning til den serbiske wikipedia side. Hvis denne billede er ok på den serbiske side, hvarfor er den inte på denne side?? Det gelder også de andre bilderne som er eksat ens som dem på den serbiske side, men blot formindskede.

Yoy wrote that the pictures are not the same like on the Serbian Wikipedia page!!?? If you look bether, you will se that picture is the same, but smaller! --Bobby 09:54, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

Nej, du har missförstått mig. Du skriver att bilderna är PD, "public domain", men du förklarar icke varför. På serbiska Wikipedia står det inte att bilderna är public domain. Vem är fotograf och tillåter denne att bilderna sprids på Wikipedia? Varifrån kommer bilderna? Är det verkligen Jugoslavien på bilderna? Vilket år är bilderna tagna?
Om du påstår att bilderna är public domain måste du ha en källa som kan verifiera att det är sant. Kan någon bekräfta att bilderna är public domain? Jag vill veta varför du påstår att bilderna är public domain. Du kan läsa mer om WikiCommons regler för bildlicenser på Commons:Licensing. Thuresson 16:06, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

Radera en bild[edit]

Hej Thuresson

Du er hurtig med at radera eksisterende wikipedia bilder, som jeg har sat fra anden wikipedia sida, men du burde radera dise tvo som er copyright beskytet

hilsen --Bobby 12:05, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

my uploads[edit]

Hi Thuresson,

I have just uploaded a batch of photos, I wanted to add the description afterwards (that's what I'm doing now).

Greetings, --Kjunix 11:51, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

OK, sorry to trouble you. Thuresson 11:53, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

Hi, no problem. it's good to know that someone is watching out... Enjoy my photos. Greetings, --Kjunix 12:49, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

Image:Vladimir Karvat.jpg[edit]

Hi, this photo ultimately comes from a Belarus web page. The uploader of en:Image:Vladimir Karvat.jpg claims that official government photos are public domain. Is this correct or not? The Belarus copyright law has no such exemption, I believe. Thuresson 15:25, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

Uploader is incorrect. {{PD-BY-exempt}} (and Belarusian copyrights law) doesn't exempt government produced photos from copyrights protection.
Even is copyrighted.
EugeneZelenko 15:34, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

Pink panter[edit]

Sorry, my english is very bad.

I dont have images' copyright but they are in the english wikipedia ( so I can use them. Can I?.

Please, answer me. I want to do good things. Marb 20:49, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

Thanks, I look for the licence, but I can't hope.
See you another day in a better situation. Bye. Marb 21:03, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

Che Guevara[edit]

Ok, my apollogies. -- Fernando S. Aldado 21:05, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

Image:Estrella amarillo.png[edit]

Copyright tag added. Alhen ..··.··.. 00:35, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

Still the Che[edit]

Hi Thuresson , you're right about the image. I'm sorry, I did not realize it was copyrighted. Thanks for your attention. --Mschlindwein 11:03, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

Template:FOTWpic and the rest of the flags of RF[edit]

Witam szablon FOTWpic wyraznie mowi "This image is from the Flags of the World website. Images of flags which are in the public domain" wiec jezeli jast PUBLIC DOMAIN to znaczy ze mozna go uzywac i taki byl cel. Ale poniewaz do flagi mozna zastosowac PD-Soviet to niech tak bedzie.

pozdrawiam Pe7er 15:45, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

First of all, please respond in English, since my question to you was put in English. Secondly, the template does not differ between public domain flags and flags protected by copyright. Thirdly, if you don't tag your uploads with a copyright tag or name your source, they are at risk of being deleted. And fourtly, PD-Soviet refers to works from the Soviet Union before 1973. Thuresson 22:06, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

Mandela sworn in photo[edit]

This photo that I copied from the Wikipedia in english clearly states by the UN that it can be used freely except for commercial usage. Wikipedia is not a commercial project and therefore presently we should be allowed to upload images which are not violating any copyrights. Your statement that an image can be uploaded if it can be used by anyone, anytime, anyhow, etc. puts unnecessary restrictions and frankly are very discouraging for people like myself who are dedicating a substantial amount of effort on this project. By the way, the photo of Mandela can be seen in the Wikipedia in english under "apartheid".--Jose montalvo 17:59, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

WikiCommons do not allow photos that can not be used commercially. No user is allowed to upload that kind of photos. See Commons:Licensing. Thuresson 18:01, 24 November 2005 (UTC)


Good Afternoon. I have received you comments about some images I'd uploaded, thank you. Some of these photos had been shot by myself or in the worse case by my close friend and partner in a non-governmet-organization (ORG) that cares about San Cristóbal (Venezuela) chronicles, that's the particular issue in the pictures Monumentalsancristobal.jpg and SCIglesiaElAngel.png, in the case of the EstadioPuebloNuevo.jpg, PolideportivodepueblonuevoSUR.jpg, PolideportivodepueblonuevoNORTE.png I can't remember where did I found those (I'm think it should be from the press, but I cannot really be sure), How can I obtain the original source, I will be more than grateful if you could help me about it.


Rolf Obermaier

UPDATE: I've just found a legal ordinance from the Municipality (Alcaldía de) of San Cristóbal about all graphic material obtained in the Polideportivo de Pueblo Nuevo (stadium) belong to the city and are free to use with no other regard than a simple recognition text.

Re:A favour[edit]

Ok Thuresson, then I understand the problem is solved by now. Anyway, I'll go through his contributions to see if I can get the information for some of those images. Regards Anna 20:35, 24 November 2005 (UTC)


I guess you'd better delete all these immediately. Unfortunately I have spent as much time on them as I can afford. I have removed all links I made to them from Wikipedia.

David Kernow 21:42, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

Further to the above, I thought I'd post the following query here first in case you already know the answer to it. I'm getting the impression that uploading (small) images to Wikipedia for "fair use" is acceptable, unlike uploading them to Wikimedia Commons. Is this correct?

Thank you, David Kernow 03:11, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for your response and direction to the Wikipedia "Fair use" policy page. I think most of the pictures I recently uploaded to Wikimedia Commons can (with some resizing) be covered by {{promophoto}} fair use on Wikipedia, so I will submit them there. Best wishes, David Kernow 22:09, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

Copyright tags[edit]

I'm sorry for setting wrong copyright tags. I corrected the copyright tags for Image:Akallavy.jpg and Image:Rinkeby skyline.jpg, but Image:Hhgg.jpg is actually GFDL in the english wikipedia where I've copied it from. Wigulf 12:12, 25 November 2005 (UTC)


Hi. How come a flag from 1897 can be subject to copyright??? Indech 19:05, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

I uploaded these flags from I wasn't aware of the restrictions of flag usage on wikipedia. Some of them I'm sorry to say probably would have to be deleted. I'll pay more attention from now on. Yours, Indech 18:46, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

replaced picture[edit]

Dear Thuresson, I tried to replace a picture that I uploaded before, but gave it accidentally a different name. Could you please remove Image:Utrecht Station.jpg? It has been replaced with Image:Utrecht station.jpg which has a better quality. Thank you in advance, Mark 21:18, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply and advise. I was not aware of the "Upload a new version of this file" functionality, but I will use it in the future (it is easier and better). Mark 15:32, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

Image:NewsFromTheRepubicOfLetters 1415.gif[edit]

You wrote: The web page claims "Copyright 2005 All rights reserved". Please explain the copyright tag you added. Thuresson 23:00, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

That image is my own creation. I'd like to have it licensed for free use with attribution; please clarify as to how I can do that.

Missing information[edit]

Hi, please add a source and a copyright tag to all images you upload. The tag "PD-flag" is deprecated, please use a different tag. Also, if you claim that the copyright owner allows use by anybody for any purpose, you must add who the copyright owner is. Thuresson 03:40, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

For Image:Flag province liege.png it is copied from eo:Dosiero:Be-wlg.gif, it is also on nl:Afbeelding:Vlag luik.png.
On nl: there is also nl:Afbeelding:Liege_vlag.gif clearly tagged as PD, but in 2:3 ration instead of 1:1
For the cities blasons, I didn't uploaded them, just categorized them; most of them seem to be from (some actually said so).
Srtxg 16:38, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

Fairuse tag on Log's[edit]

Hello Thuresson, i observed that you placed a {{logo}} tag on some logo's, such as Image:Apple Macintosh Logo.JPG. I'm not quite sure if that's entirely correct, because both logos are not actually images, but photos of logos found on products manufactered by that company (such as the Apple logo is a photograph of the back of an iBook). I'm not sure if this has been a topic of discussion yet.

Thanks, Husky 00:10, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for your message. At Commons:Licensing is says "Specifically, the following are generally not allowed: [..] Trademarked symbols, logos, etc". It could be interesting though to have this discussed at Commons:Village pump. Thuresson 00:17, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
Hey Thuresson, thanks for discussing this on the Village pump. I think we have a consensus here. Maybe we could add it to Commons:Licensing? Husky 13:02, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

JMPerez's images[edit]

Hello thuresson, sure enough all those images are fair use, the webpage states explicitly that they can only be used for educational or investigation purposes, citing the source and the author of the work. I don't think the user has asked for an authorization under the GFDL so it was given in consideration of an encyclopedic use. I'll go through them and retire them from Regards Anna 00:51, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Fair use[edit]

Really? Ok, I didn't knew it! What's the reason? Why english wikipedia can and wikicommons can't? :o Thankx

Xumi 12:03, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Octupus cards[edit]

Hi, what is the copyright status of Octupus cards? Who owns the design, etcetera? I question that you own the copyright, perhaps this should be licensed differently? Thuresson 09:58, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

I am the one who scanned this card, and I certainly did not mean to have owned the designs. (just as the one who taked a photo of Eiffel Tower or White House did not own the designs, right?) What license would you suggest? --Hello World! 16:58, 30 November 2005 (UTC)


I donwload the flags of Jersey and Emilia_Romagna because they don't visualizes in the page of Catalan Wikipedia.


I appreciate your answer on Complaint about Admin Paddy. And I thank you for the approval for my work on commons. Big greetings --Paddy 00:20, 2 December 2005 (UTC)


Hi; what about the image of Itri? Wasn't it licenzed? —Mac9 09:29, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

No, sorry. The uploader, User:Attilios, only comment was "Site not stating copyrights". Uploader did not write which web site, also, web sites do not have to explicitly claim copyright. Thuresson 09:34, 2 December 2005 (UTC)


Hello, how're you? I've copied that image from the English Wikipedia understanding that it is included in the provissions of Law 11.723. There it had no credits, and so I've no idea of them, but there can be no problem. If I find somewhere the author of the photograph, be sure I'll put it here. --Galio 22:07, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Les images[edit]

Je veux bien parler des images lesquelles vous me écrivez:

Les images suivant sont fait par moi-même:
Les images suivant ont origines des Wikipedia francais ou wikipedia anglais:
Image:André Boisclair.jpg
Image:P p pasolini.jpg
Image:Coq wallon.JPG

Je ne sais pas comment il faut les refaire dans la reserve, mais voilà. Amicalment Alexius Manfelt 13:26, 3 December 2005 (UTC)


I have some problems with the flags on png format. I download twice Emilia-Romagna flag of English Wipedia (and Italian wikipedia), but not visualize in my article in Catalan Wikipedia. Finally, third time, I get visualize it in the article. I'm sorry. I had the same problem in other articles (Jersey), and I download the same flag and upload the same file with another name for it.

Permission from[edit]

I simply send an e-mail and they gave me permission. But actually the question is disputed since people here think I have exceeded with articles and images taken from there. But I think you can use freely the material already downloaded. Attilios.

Regarding Image:Stewart tranchell.jpg[edit]


thank you for bringing this to my attention.

After investigating the origin of this image, it doesn't seem clear that the origin of this image has a valid GNU Free Documentation License, so please do remove this image. You should also take actions to remove it from (from where it originated) and , to make sure that nobody else may make a similar mistake in the future.

Thanks. Aman, 09.06, 5 December 2005


Hi Thuresson.

Why is Image:Universitas.jpg fair use, when there are plenty of similar images in Category:Newspapers? Then one should delete many of those as well. Kjetil r 21:48, 5 December 2005 (UTC)


Hej. Nu har jag hittat hit också. Jag håller på att "tvätta" en del växtillustrationer och laddar upp dem vartefter, för närvarande Carex. Du kan ju hålla ett öga på mig så jag inte ställer till något :) Chrizz 05:07, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

OK, vi hörs. Thuresson 05:09, 6 December 2005 (UTC)


Image:Vohwinkeler-Flohmarkt-2.jpg Image:Wappen cronenberg.gif Image:Wsvwappen.jpg

all pictures are from de/wikipedia and are transfer into commons (NowCommons) --Atamari 06:37, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Yes, of course. The question is, where did the users of German Wikipedia get them from? Thuresson 06:40, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
Image:Vohwinkeler-Flohmarkt-2.jpg is self-made, what is you mind??????? --Atamari 06:42, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
I transfer only picture with lizenz PD and GNU (GDFL) --Atamari 06:43, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
Please add enough information so that other users can verify that the photos are released under a free license. Thuresson 06:48, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
I have in all picture add the template.... better you start an action to stop upload on all lokal-wikipedia -> this is the better way, only upload in the commons. It save time ;-) --Atamari 06:53, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
All photos on WikiCommons must have a copyright tag and information so that other users can verify the source. Images with incomplete information may be deleted 7 days after upload. Thuresson 07:01, 6 December 2005 (UTC)


I copied the image (and description) of the Gorshkov from the en.wikipedia (I translated the article about "aircraft carrier" in italian). On the description associated to the {{PD-IndiaGov}} tag say only "his image is in the public domain as it comes from an Indian Government site. Information published by Indian government websites are in Public Domain under the Right to Information Act."

If it's not in PD please remove it. Sorry for the problem.--Moroboshi 19:46, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Category Train redundant now[edit]

Dear Thuresson, This evening I did some effort to combine two very similar categories. Category:Train is empty now and all items are moved to Category:Trains. So please, could you be so kind to delete Category:Train? Another thing: There seems to be a (partly) doubling of (sub)categories like Category:Trains of .... and Category:Railways in ..... Category Railways is more specific, so I incline to think that it would be better to move all items in Category:Trains to Category:Railways, but this category is not systematically set up. Do you know if there are any guidelines to streamline this kind of redundancy? Mark 21:45, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Coat of Arms[edit]

Hi, all the coat of arms that I've uploaded have been taken from English wikipedia and the only copyright tag in English wikipedia for this images is: {{coatofarms}}. For example see [21]. I think that maybe it isn't enough with this tag in Commons... --Willtron 21:54, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

My advice is that you get the coats of arms you need from and use the tag {{}}. See Image:Coat of arms of Philippines.png for an example. Thuresson 22:24, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Image:José Pacheco.jpg[edit]

although the site disponibilize some photos for download, I did not obtain an official confirmation of the team that keeps the site, of that specifically the photo it can be used freely. For telephone they had said that they are not worried about the copy, but they do not give guarantee of that the author of the photo can disclose itself opposes. Thus, I consider cautious to deletar the same one.

Chico 18:54, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Regarding Image:Heather ORourke at Disneyland.jpg[edit]

Please refer to Template:Deletion requests -> December 9 -> :Image:Heather ORourke at Disneyland.jpg.

Adnghiem501 23:24, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, I have asked you some questions from Template:Deletion requests. Adnghiem501 02:28, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for the deletion of this image. I will soon upload the same image to English Wikipedia, which only allows "fair use" images. I did misunderstand the way to upload this image to here, that is opposed to copyright violation. See me at Wikipedia. Adnghiem501 08:48, 20 December 2005 (UTC)


Ok, thanks!

Polish president photos[edit]

But these photos are straight from Polish President Website - it is their source. Is there any problem? P A L L A D I N U S talk 06:35, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

But in template {{PolishPresidentCopyright}} the URL is given, I don't know what is your point? P A L L A D I N U S talk 06:39, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

So, what is this template for if I must still give a link to specific file! You mean something like this [22]? P A L L A D I N U S talk 06:47, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm not sure if such detailed information is needed and it's to much work to find it. This tamplet should do it because there is only requirement to give a source as and that's all. P A L L A D I N U S talk 07:04, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

OK, I will see what I can do but in my opinion the source is given in this template {{PolishPresidentCopyright}}. Br P A L L A D I N U S talk 07:12, 11 December 2005 (UTC)



I uploaded a new version of the file, it's now OK. Thank you for reporting the problem. Bibi Saint-Pol 12:32, 11 December 2005 (UTC)


Ok, I did not now that non-commercial licenses are not allowed. helohe (talk) 14:32, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Deleting Photos[edit]

Hi Thuresson I don’t say that they don’t have laws against stealing or killing in Belgrade, Skopje or Zagreb (this is too much dramatic ), but I say that Yugoslavia don’t exist.

Wikipedia pages I’m a little confused about other pictures from Wikipedia pages: I understand (or I’m wrong?) that Wikipedia’s policy is the same in any language, but when I place a picture from another existing Wikipedia pages, those pictures are deleted, and I don’t understand why. I mean that, when the picture is on other pages (English, German, Serbian, Croatian and more…), then we can use those pictures free.

Back to deleted pictures from II World War: A lot of those pictures are already published on numerous internet pages with no copy rights, so I can not see some problems there!

Pictures from postcards: I have a big collection from old postcard and mostly of them are printed in different Yugoslav towns by Yugoslav company Turisticka Stamparija. This company (like the state) don’t exist anymore, so I can see why we can not use them.

Official flag pictures: A lot of those pictures are deleted, even when I place PD-Flag sign. Those pictures are placed with same sign on another page, but they are immediately deleted when I place them on Danish side. What’s the reason for that? Again: Is Wikipedias policy not the same for any language?

Regards from--Bobby 01:47, 12 December 2005 (UTC)


The permission is really unclear. There is no mention to the GFDL nor the photo itself. It's more or less this talk:

Q: Can I use the Sisa's biography at your web site for a free non-commercial encyclopedia?

A: There is no problem.

--Sanbec 11:15, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

movies trailers[edit]

Thanks, I hope I will do more, and other user add more too. For the quality i use media player classic to do the screenshot, if you know a better soft, make my day ! For the copyvo, it seem to be ok. belive it, so... When we will have more films, I will made more category, but for now, I things it's better to have all the films in the same catégory so users can fund films more easy. Please, tell this good news, on the .sv films project, we need more american films (just works for american films ): sniff). Best regards. Petrus 14:04, 14 December 2005 (UTC)


Hi Thuresson,

Sorry I do not really understand, why do you want to delete my recently uploaded pictures, and the template. They come from a site qhich explicitly says that "Fotopages claims no ownership rights in any image contained in any of your photologs" What is different between this marking and the one for NASA pictures, for example?

Ciao, --Lampiao3 20:27, 14 December 2005 (UTC)


It was a mistake. I just corrected it. Regards, --German 20:57, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

small question[edit]

Hello Thuresson, i have a question concerning two deletion requests: this and the following one. What was the reason for keeping the both pictures? best regards --BLueFiSH ?! 21:55, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

These are nominations from August. There were good reasons given both for deleting the photos and keeping them and both sides of the discussion had its supporters. Since consensus could not be reached I moved the request to the archive in late November. It is my opinion that no deletion request should take 3 months. Thuresson 22:07, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
That the deletion request took 3 months is not a reason to keep the photos. In doubt the photos should be deleted. Concerning the "Recht am eigenen Bild" and the fact that the girls are not asked wether the images are allowed to be published under a free license i can not understand your decision to just archive the discussion. I always thought that Commons are based on the lowest common denominator what would mean that "Recht am eigenen Bild" is relevant because it _is_ german law. Also you did not answer to the question from User:Fb78 in the first del.req. Best regards. --BLueFiSH ?! 03:00, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
It appears that none of the WikiCommons administrators thought that the reasons for deletion were convincing enough to actually delete the photos. Thuresson 07:44, 15 December 2005 (UTC)


Hi Thuresson, you have removed your del request for this image. Why? Greetings, --Olei 23:56, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

This is not my deletion request. If you think it should be deleted, simply remove the blue frame around the discussion. Thuresson 07:32, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
How? --Olei 18:10, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

copyvio uploader[edit]

Hi there!

I did some work on Th3j0ker contributions, asking for deletion of all these articles he/she created with only a link to his/her highly dubtous images. He's been uploading all these images in order to use it in Spanish Wikipedia, and as you know, fairly lying in some licenses. I'm going now to verify his contributions on es:

Hispa 10:51, 15 December 2005 (UTC) (please, messages at: my spanish talk page)

To Hispa:[edit]

I've added the source to each image. I haven't lain in any case 'tontopolla', I didn't take any image from an official page but from blogs of users who have those images with license Creative Commons (for example Oli's picture), and another images have been taken by me. You must know the case before to saying any stupidity. User:Th3j0ker

Thank you, but you did not provide any source for Image:Oli Cádiz.jpg. Where is it from? Thuresson 14:32, 15 December 2005 (UTC)


Hi, the change you made to Image:Evolution-tasks.png doesn't seem to be working. This image is used widely on Wikipedia, so could you perhaps change it back? Thanks. en:User:Jacoplane

The other image did not have a source and a copyright license so I had to chose between deleting the image or uploading a similar image. Thuresson 00:34, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

COA of DRC[edit]

Hi Thuresson:
I've given an explanation about the wrong COA that you put in place in its discussion page (Image talk:Congo dem coa.png) as well as an explanation for the other presumably "proposal" (haven't found any proposal in any congolese newspapers, maybe I missed it), I'd rather see a concrete reference before admiting it can be such a "proposal". Discussion there : w:Talk:Coat of Arms of the Democratic Republic of the Congo. ---moyogo 00:51, 17 December 2005 (UTC) Feel free to fix it [23], thanks ---moyogo 00:52, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

flickr license[edit]

I think they are all now licensed as cc-ShareAlike isn't that rigth?--Friviere 22:33, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Yes, thank you very much. Thuresson 22:36, 17 December 2005 (UTC)


Hola Thuresson; las imagenes de Walter H. Wust, cuya fuente es el archivo de la es:Reserva Nacional de Paracas y licencian la fotografía bajo {{GFDL}}, "sólo si su uso es educativo", para otros usos (digamos publicidad) no hay licencia bajo esta modalidad. Que pases bonitas Navidades. Un abrazo.


Hi Thuresson. Please see what happened here please. By the way, those pictures are copyrigted; I have the book from where they were taken. If it's needed, I'll upload the whole page(s). Regards Paulo Juntas 23:56, 18 December 2005 (UTC)


Tr-ikeda2.jpg, Ikeda06.jpg and Ikeda54.jpg are all from the same source (my old aikido club's website). I have the administrator's agreement on publication in WC. What else is needed?

Image:Congo dem coa.png[edit]

Hi Thuresson,
I'm sorry if I'm not doing this curtiously enough, but it seems to be to be the way things are done here, we flag and don't discuss about things. Why do you consider Image:Congo dem coa.png not redundant? ----moyogo 09:15, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Only identical or next-to-identical images (different size, different shade of colour) can be redundant to each other. Thuresson 10:53, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
OK, thanks. ---moyogo 15:05, 20 December 2005 (UTC)


It would like to know as insert the category in the image and excuse me for the loaded bad images before. --Jm783 15:50, 20 December 2005 (UTC)


It obliged by clear my doubts. But I would like to know also which would be the correct license for photographs that I even photographed? --Jm783 23:21, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

See it[edit]

User talk:Luís Felipe Braga hugs, FML IconSP.jpg hi 14:55, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Thank you / gracias. Thuresson 14:57, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Tveksam PD[edit]

Hej Thuresson! Är du snäll och kikar på det här Image talk:CellMembraneDrawing.jpg. Vad göra? Bilden är läcker, men om den inte är fri... / Habj 03:11, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Inget som motsvarar just den, dewiki har en mycket fulare bild men som är OK. Jag ska snoka lite mera på enwiki ang. den här bilden, så får vi se. / Habj 00:20, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
Hoppla, den har blivit raderad från enwiki! Jag borde väl ta upp bilden till diskussion här - var gör jag det? Eller ska den bara "delete"-märkas? *snyft* men den bilden var lite för bra för att var sann. Jag får väl nöja mig med den från dewiki. / Habj 00:24, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

commons:Image:Uruguay coa.svg[edit]

Done. I made the file so i put PD-Self as requested. Tatoute

Image:Bulgaria coa.png[edit]

Hello. We have a larger version of Image:Bulgaria coa.png at bg:Картинка:Gerb na Balgaria.png. It is downloaded from The coat of arms itself (including an authoritative sample) is described in a special law and I don't think that it could be copyrighted by (may be the creation of the file ?). Best regards. --Nk 06:35, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Lola :) (i'm hungarian girl)[edit]

Hi, my name is Pálnagy Lola, my dad Pálnagy László - sorry speak little!! english :) - copyrigth hungarian : CC & english CC all images : Pálnagy László & Kalligrafika - gallery 1 & Kalligrafika - gallery 2 & VirtuAll Gallery - thank you :) Thuresson - --Lola 12:40, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Merry Christmas! Happy New Year! :)

About Poker Screenshots[edit]

I am not sure the exact license to use (GFDL maybe). I made the images using the cards from the SVG playing cards and I used Microsoft Paint to do them. I'll be changing the license description later. - 上村七美 15:25, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Encore des images[edit]

Je suis désolé, donc vous ne savez pas lire? Ils sont les images ci-jointes toutes des Wikipedia differents. En principe Wiki en ou fr. Je met la note de ses images toujour quand je sert une image dans commons. Regardons:

Image:Alienorinhauta.JPG = Wiki en

Image:Miniature Philippe Auguste traversant la Loire.jpg = Wiki fr

Image:Louis8-1onction.jpg = Wiki en

Image:Armoiries Charles Anjou av 1246.png = Wiki fr

Image:-Armoiries Anjou Jérusalem.png = Wiki fr

Image:Miniature Philippe Auguste traversant la Loire.jpg = Wiki fr

Image:Alienorinhauta.JPG = Wiki en / deux fois?

Image:Jean Monnet.jpg = Wiki en.

Amicalment. et je crois que c'est Vous qui m'écrivez, sans signature ;) Alexius Manfelt 22:45, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Donc, voilà

JAG !!! Mais ne m'écrivez pas en anglais, je ne sais utiliser cette langue, si c'est une langue. Alexius Manfelt 21:02, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
H. Thuresson, titta på sidan: och varför det kan vara där? Alexius Manfelt 05:23, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Image:General Colin Powell.jpg[edit]

Well, I can't prove that its a photo taken by the US Army, I just copied and uploaded it from the English Wiki. And I forgot to mention the original uploader, sorry! greetz--SoIssetEben! 17:27, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

Stamps of India[edit]

Hi! The first line of the notice reads: "Re-production of stamps is allowed for illustration purposes in Philatelic Publication or in an article relating wholly on postage stamps which may appear in any magazine, newspaper or publication of a general character." It looks to me that the license is targeted towards print-media and not electronic-media. However, I agree that it may not be possible to release the image(s) in PD on Wikipedia (from where it can be taken forward and used in ways not subscribing to this licensing). On the other hand, electronic-media is governed by "right to information act", as suggested under the PD license on the image page. May I request you for suggestions please? PS: I am not a regular at commons. It will help if I am contected at w:User_talk:Miljoshi. --Miljoshi 09:38, 26 December 2005 (UTC)


Hi Thuresson, sorry to bother. CommonPlace doesn't work, or is it my problem? Paulo Juntas 16:24, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Picture information[edit]

I added the sources for a few of the files you mentioned and the others were taken from the English Wikipedia as well, however, I won't be using them any more as I will be using a different format for the Portal:Warcraft (Spanish Wikipedia) page. I will be letting those contributions get deleted and will be adding some different pictures later on. Jahernan

Bild:Aston Martin.svg[edit]

Deleted, uploader claims fair use. Thuresson 11:54, 30 December 2005 (UTC) Your job is to hard, isn´t it? And now this mobbing german guy..... Im NOT claiming fair use. Please let me know within 5 days where this symbol is a registered trademark. Something like ICE (trains), Wikipedia (footwear) or SICK (security electronic) in germany. Otherwise i will upload it again. Wish you a happy new year. -- Stahlkocher 12:49, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Flush. Thuresson 18:38, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
4 days left -- Stahlkocher 12:41, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Image:Santa monica beach 1908.jpg[edit]

Sorry about the oversight. I added a description for that image. Rl 23:48, 31 December 2005 (UTC)


I just stumbled over this picture of en:Jascha Heifetz. I very much doubt that it is Public Domain -- by the looks of it, it must be a promo photo taken in the second half of the 20th century. It was uploaded by Mattes who seems to be a bit too trusting when reading claims that something is PD. Can you take a look? Rl 11:11, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

I appreciate your taking care of this, I know what a tedious job this copyvio hunting is. Thanks! – On a somewhat related note: Months ago, I uploaded a whole bunch of photographs from the early 20th century (like Image:Santa monica beach 1908.jpg from the section above). It is my understanding that works created (published?) before about 1920 are safe no matter if or when the artist died. Well, someone tagged one of those images, and I don't really know what to do about it (there's some additional text below the templates). Do you have any insight into that problem? Rl 19:52, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
I will do that. Thanks again. Rl 09:35, 6 January 2006 (UTC)


Hello Thuresson. I'm looking at:

and found that the licensing was strangely odd. These are linked from pt:Caso Saltillo.

Fotopages Terms of Service specifies, on the section about Monitoring of Content:

In general Fotopages does not control the content of any user's photolog and does not have any obligation to monitor such content for any purpose. All content provided by a user of this service is the sole responsibility of that user, not Fotopages.

Which means that, and since it's free, any user can register himself with fake addresses and post copyrighted photos. I think that the fact of fotopages not claiming any ownership is not a credible copyright status, since the posters usually don't provide this information. As you can see here, it even says at the bottom posted by: unnamed. Better yet, if you click on terceiro anel - recordar é viver // By: terceiro anel, you will find plenty of information about the poster (ironic). Note that might be a dangerous exception for future reference. This was an in-field photograph, not a common photograph for mere game/stadium audience. In fact, they seem to be all a copyright violation from História de 50 anos do Desporto Português (History os 50 Years of Sports in Portugal), as pointed out by User:Juntas and discretely camuflated by an anonymous (later reposted by yourself). Later it would happen again. And again. I don't know what happened later, but the photos are still here.

Later, I just found this. I think that someone tried to call us stupids (Denniss/Dennisss?).

I would have proposed the images for VfD, but don't know the procedure here. At least, the issue should be investigated, don't you think? Best regards, -- Nuno Tavares PT 13:37, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

So may I assume that once the template is deleted, all the images that use it will also get deleted? Where can I vote, otherwise? -- Nuno Tavares PT 02:31, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
Correct. Uploader claims that the photos are GFDL but have not been able to provide a source who can verify that so the photos may have to be deleted. Thuresson 06:01, 4 January 2006 (UTC)