User talk:Trycatch/Archives/2011

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to: navigation, search
Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.


Hello, I am new here. I just uploaded the file File:Sex shop in the PRC.jpg. Can you please help me regarding the procedure of OTRS. Should I have to use OTRS permission? The copyright of the image is allowed here [1] --Neptune 123 (talk) 04:21, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

The image passed the flicker review so this is not needed. I will replace the OTRS tag with the correct license tag. But for images that are not from flicker you may need to use OTRS. MorganKevinJ(talk) 04:27, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
Thanks! --Neptune 123 (talk) 04:31, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Inappropriate deletion nominations

When you tag things for deletion, make sure that the image is not PD because it was published before 1923. Your own source verifies it. Also make sure that you don't confuse -one- image with a -collection- of images. Ottava Rima (talk) 02:02, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

  • But it was first published in the UK, so PD-US stuff is irrelevant. Of course it's in the public domain in the US (so it could be uploaded to en-wiki), but it's not free enough for Commons. Trycatch (talk) 03:54, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
No, it isn't. "its first publication occurred prior to January 1, 1923." It has nothing to do with where the first publication's location was. Read this: "Works Registered or First Published in the U.S.". Not "first registered". Please do not make up ridiculous claims to delete a file for no apparent reason. Ottava Rima (talk) 05:12, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
This alternate of the same thing makes it very clear that you are wrong. As a Commons's user who works in deletion discussions, you must surely know that the image is 100% acceptable so it makes your actions really problematic. Ottava Rima (talk) 05:18, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
I think your interpretation of the policy is quite special. At least there is no reason not to discuss whether the image can be kept. --LPfi (talk) 08:53, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
Even a person who studies law in the UK said that it is clearly PD in the US and clearly falls within the wording of the exception. The WMF made it clear that such images were acceptable and the community affirmed it. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:02, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
See Commons:Licensing: "Uploads of non-U.S. works are normally allowed only if the work is either in the public domain or covered by a valid free license in both the U.S. and the country of origin of the work. The "country of origin" of a work is generally the country where the work was first published." {{PD-1923}} template contains the very same statement: "Public domain works must be out of copyright in both the United States and in the source country of the work in order to be hosted on the Commons. If the work is not a U.S. work, the file must have an additional copyright tag indicating the copyright status in the source country." This picture was first published in the UK, and it's not free in the country of origin (country of the first publication), so it can't be hosted on Commons. Yes, it's in the public domain in the US, but this is not enough for Commons, because the picture not free in the rest of the world. Well, actually it's a speedy deletion case, the DR was not even necessary. Trycatch (talk) 20:19, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
"Exception: Faithful reproductions of two-dimensional works of art, such as paintings, which are in the public domain are an exception to this rule." As Ironholds points out, the work is PD in the US because it was registered there before 1923. Any copy of the illustration, since it is art, is allowed on Commons because of this. It doesn't matter under what clause it is allowable.
Furthermore, PD-1923 has both "first published in", meaning it was published by a certain date and not, as you claim, published first in the US. Notice the word order - there are two very different meanings. "First published in the US before 1923" means "First published before 1923". The use of "Registered or First Published" verifies this. Registered is the process of taking a foreign work and noting its copyrighted status and applying that to the US. Ottava Rima (talk) 23:56, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
P.S., statements on tags does not mean they are legally correct, nor did that PD tag take into consideration the WMF backed changed to policy when adding the exception. Ottava Rima (talk) 23:58, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
The exception is about reproductions of _free_ works (free in the sense of Commons, i.e. free both in the US and in the country of origin). This is a reproduction of the work that is not free by that definition. Are you trying to prove that any reproduction of a work of art which is in the PD in the US can be hosted on Commons? This interpretation contradicts both to the spirit of the policy and to the well-established practice. Well, effectively you are proposing abolishment of "free in the country of origin" requirement, of course it's against Commons policies. Trycatch (talk) 13:22, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
"reproductions of _free_ works" Yes, and the image is a reproduction of a work that is free in the US. That was pointed out by someone who studies law in the UK. And yes, any reproduction of a work that is 1923 old IS allowable on Commons per the intent of the WMF declaration. The idea was that any -legitimate- US PD claims on -2D artwork-, i.e. paintings and illustrations, were allowed. What wasn't included were 3D art works and those who lost their copyright for reasons that weren't 1923 or author+70 per the URAA. The URAA makes it so that only those two establish PD and nothing else does. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:10, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
So I take any image which is PD in USA. If it is not PD in the source country I make a copy and upload the copy. Voilà. It is a 2D reproduction of a 2D work PD in the USA. Do you really think that is what the policy means? --LPfi (talk) 21:17, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
The URAA makes any other country's copyright count in the United States. However, the two Copyright turning to PD standards, pre-1923 and Author's death + 70 still apply. The WMF's standard is to say that it doesn't matter what other countries try to say in respect to copies of 2D artwork, i.e. paintings and illustrations (not photographic images, sculptures, or the rest) are acceptable here as long as they meet the PD requirements listed above. It is to keep other countries from putting inappropriate standards to keep famous pieces of artwork from not appearing here. What this doesn't do is allow works that would be PD in the US because of lack of registration or associated problems, as the URAA was passed to cover that. Ottava Rima (talk) 00:35, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:P history.png

Hi, I've reopened this DR that you started (converted from a speedy) and added the other versions of that image. If you have new comments you are welcome to point them there. Cheers. --Màñü飆¹5 talk 09:50, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

  • Thanks for the notice. Trycatch (talk) 13:22, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Loughner home

Hi there. Could you take another look at File:Loughner family home.JPG? The original uploader keeps trying to withdraw the CC-BY-SA he originally used and tag it as a copyvio, and I really don't want to get blocked for correcting this again. Thanks. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:16, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

  • I don't want to speed up the deletion process in this case, because there is already some input in the DR. Trycatch (talk) 19:33, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Pictures of Paul Sérusier

Hello Trycatch,

Thanks for the sources you have added on the paintinge of Paul Sérusier. :) But how have you found the urls? I have try to find them by the search engine of in order to help Moreau.henri but I have only found harebrained results.

Thanks again for your help.--Bapti 18:10, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

It was easy to find using Advanced search after I've realised that "1927" was the year of publication: [2]. Trycatch (talk) 20:56, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
Thanks, but how do you find the exact page ? Have you a technical trick or have you see all the pages of the book to find the exact one ?--Bapti 14:36, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
For some weird reason Gallica search for Sérusier in this volume returns 0 results, but search for Serusier was fine. It's also possible to switch "Display" into "Gallery" mode and to find required picture visually. Trycatch (talk) 19:26, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

File:Irvington statue of Rip van Winkle.jpg

Hi Trycatch, please undelete File:Irvington statue of Rip van Winkle.jpg, which was deleted as per deletion request. Permission for releasing this image has been received from the sculptor as per OTRS ticket:2011012710010317. Some changes need to be made concerning permission and licence. I will take care of that once the image has been restored. -- Best regards, Taketa (talk) 11:54, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

✓ Done --Trycatch (talk) 12:22, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
Thank you. -- Taketa (talk) 19:50, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Edward S. Curtis

Hi, Trycatch. Something went wrong here. Any idea what the problem is? Rrburke (talk) 04:03, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

  • Sadly TIFF format is not fully supported by Commons at this time. I don't really know details, but sometimes the software don't generate a thumbnail. There is also 12.5 million pixel software limit for all lossless formats (PNG, GIF, TIFF) -- the software can't generate thumbnails for larger pictures, because it takes too much memory. This problem is not solved for 5 years or something. In such cases (when Commons can't generate thumbnail for a lossless picture) it's better to upload both 1) original picture for archival purposes (if somebody wants to modify this file, (s)he should use lossless original) 2) the same picture converted to JPEG to make possible to use it in Wikipedia. Trycatch (talk) 07:33, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
Thanks; I'll do that. Ideally, it would be useful to be able to put a link to the jpeg version in the "other_versions=" field of the information template for the tiff file (and vice-versa), but I can't seem to get that to work with the {{EdwardCurtis}} template. Rrburke (talk) 16:02, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
Hmm, after a closer look at {{EdwardCurtis}}, it seems that this template was substituted by a bot in 2010 (and for a good reason -- the template was created 5 years ago, now such templates do not fit to the system). So there is no point to use it without substitution for now.Trycatch (talk) 16:23, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

moving file

Hi! Is it possible to move file File:Asian Highway nr 6 sign.svg to File:Tabliczka AH6.svg without deleting and re-uploading that image? If it is, please move. Thanks, Miko101 (talk) 22:10, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

  • It's possible, but I don't feel that this particular case fits strict Commons:File renaming policy. This policy generally discourages file moves without really serious reasons (for example, personal attacks or factual error in a title). Trycatch (talk) 22:40, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

RE: Warning

Understood. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 03:32, 1 April 2011 (UTC)


Can you please revote. I reverted because the half page has been removed. Thanks. --RE RILLKE Questions? 23:23, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Your text was:

* {{oppose}} per Tryphon. I'm concerned that we routinely promote admins without any serious expierence in target area of activity. I am not particularly happy with speedy deletion requests of redirects and the whole User:Toilet thing as well (e.g. nomination for deletion of Nasca lines photographs). Maybe it's a little problem, but giving lack of activity in admin areas, it's enough for me to oppose. [[User:Trycatch|Trycatch]] ([[User talk:Trycatch|<span class="signature-talk">talk</span>]]) 22:45, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

I would re-add this text myself but I don't know whether this is allowed. --RE RILLKE Questions? 23:27, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

  • Thanks, that was because Chrome restores the text in edit controls in case of browser reboot, but edit box was not the same. Trycatch (talk) 23:31, 1 April 2011 (UTC)


Шановний! Годі нападати на зображення (розумію, що для вас воно напевно не подобається). Це копія зображення з української Вікі де воно цілком атрибутовано, ще раз наголошую вам на цьому моменті, і сумнівів щодо його ліцензії ніхто не має. Вирішуйте ваші особисті проблеми в іншому місці, інакше мені доведеться звернутися до адміністраторів. Дякую за розуміння. --Bulka UA (talk) 22:30, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

  • Здравствуйте! Проблема в том, что лицензия, которая дана в w:uk:File:Українофобія.jpg ("використання на сторінках вікіпедії та будь-яких іншіх інтернет-ресурсах для ілюстрації явища українофобії (антиукраїнизма, україножерства, україноненавистництва тощо") не является достаточно свободной для Викисклада -- в ней нет ни указания на то, можно ли свободно распространять производные работы, ничего не сказано про то, можно ли использовать файл не в Интернете, например, в книге. Это противоречит определению свободного произведения, которое используется Викискладом -- Именно поэтому рекомендуется получать разрешения под стандартные свободные лицензия, такие как, например, CC-BY-SA 3.0. Другая проблема состоит в том, что файл создан третьим лицом, а не тем участником, кем файл был загружен. В таких случаях всегда нужно независимое подтверждение от автора, предпочтительным методом такого подтверждения лицензии от автора является COM:OTRS. Если эти проблемы не будут решены, то файл почти наверняка будет удален. Trycatch (talk) 23:41, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Toys as derivative art

Ouch, that sounds very weird, but if that's what the community decided I'm gonna stop. Sad thing though. --WikiKiwi (talk) 16:22, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Could you talk to User:TarzanASG

Hi, Could you help me talk to Russian User:TarzanASG with en-1 level. I try to maintain category:Creator templates and one thing I do is to make sure creator templates do not autocategorize files. Recently I corrected Creator:Oleg_Kozyrev removing auto categorization and adding all the files using the creator template to Category:Videos by Oleg Kozyrev but User:TarzanASG reverted me. I do not want to try to explain it all in english to en-1 user and thought it would be more friendly to find a Russian speaker. Could you explain that we no longer use autocategorization for creator templates? Thanks --Jarekt 03:26, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

  • Thanks for the notice, I'll try to explain. BTW I think TarzanASG is good enough in English, and maybe your help will be needed in that conversation. Trycatch 09:12, 29 April 2011 (UTC)No, it's seems that everything is ok. Trycatch 09:30, 29 April 2011 (UTC)


Hi. Can you please provide a better explanation for your delete action regarding this file? Here's what I mean: The original debate was opened on April 22. I responded, at length, on the very same day. No response from the original complainant. In fact, to this day, no response from that original complainant. No response from anyone, in fact. That is, until May 4th, when you intervened and elected to summarily delete the file with no debate, discussion, or opportunity for response. Your reasoning? You pulled a 20 year old court decision. A decision which only affirmed that the Oscar statuette is eligible for protection under the 1976 Copyright law and the lower court erred in evoking the Lanham Act regarding unfair competition, and unlawful dilution. But curiously you also ignored the fact that the image itself was created by The Smithsonian, an agency of the Federal Government, and as such is in the public domain. The original complainant didn't appear to know that the Smithsonian is in fact an agency of the Federal Government. You also incorrectly argued that the Smithsonian itself had not expressly acknowledged that there were “no known copyright restrictions” - when in fact, the exact opposite is true. Their webpage clearly stated: "Smithsonian Content is identified as having “no known copyright restrictions” when the Smithsonian is unaware of any copyright restrictions on its use.". I provided the link. What could be more clear? Finally, you also ignored that the Academy's website clearly stated that simply attaching “©A.M.P.A.S.®” to an image of their statuette, fully satisfies their copyright for both news and editorial uses. This was also noted as applying expressly to, among others, "digital publications". Given all this, I really believe you need to re-evaluate your conclusion, reconsider your unilateral response, and restore this image. If not, then please explain your rationale - and lets have the discussion here that I was not afforded before your deletion. Thanks! X4n6 (talk) 07:18, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

  • Hi! In my opinion, there was no chance to keep this picture, photographs of Oscar statuettes get deleted on regular base, because Oscar is not free, e.g. Commons:Deletion requests/Images of Oscar statuettes, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Greg Hernandez at 2009 Academy Awards.JPG, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Oscar.jpg, etc., so I've deleted this picture without further discussion (it was already discussed multiple times), but with a short explanation of the decision. There is a 9th Circuit Court of Appeals decision affirmed that the Oscar statuette is still copyrighted, it leaves not much freedom for us. I don't know if the photo was created by a government employee or by some contractor, but anyway even if the photo was created by a US Government employee, it gives nothing to us, it's still copyrighted as a derivative work from a copyrighted sculpture. Government can't put third-party copyrighted works in the public domain simply photographing them.
  • "Their webpage clearly stated: "Smithsonian Content is identified as having “no known copyright restrictions” when the Smithsonian is unaware of any copyright restrictions on its use.". I provided the link." -- yes, and content wasn't identified as such on the page you linked to. Compare e.g. with page!140709~!7 explicitly marked as "No known copyright restrictions." Anyway Oscar statuettes are copyrighted, with or without mark "no known copyright restrictions."
  • "Finally, you also ignored that the Academy's website clearly stated that simply attaching “©A.M.P.A.S.®” to an image of their statuette, fully satisfies their copyright for both news and editorial uses." -- I didn't ignore this, I've explained in the summary that this permission (for news and editorial uses) is simply not free enough to be hosted on Commons. See Commons:Licensing: "Wikimedia Commons accepts only free content, that is, images and other media files that can be used by anyone, anytime, for any purpose. " Permission on Academy's website is not free enough, because it seriously restricts possible use of a work, media under this permission can't be used by anyone, anytime, for any purpose.
  • Trycatch (talk) 14:24, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
    • Thanks for your answers. Now I'll respond:
    • I appreciate that in your opinion there was no chance for this photo, because you say Oscar photos get deleted on a regular basis. First, I appreciate your honesty that your deletion was you simply exercising your opinion. But as regards the other deleted Oscar photos, I would simply ask what was their source? Source is obviously key. There is no dispute that the photo was made by an agency of the U.S. Government. It says so. There is also no dispute that the website itself says it is unaware of ANY copyright issue regarding the use of their photo. So basically, you have an agency of the U.S. federal government explicitly stating that in their own view, their own image is in the public domain. Yet that's not good enough for Commons?
    • I believe your repeated reference to the 9th Circuit decision still misses the mark. Have you actually read it? It simply affirms that the Academy has the right to copyright it's statuette. So? When was that ever at issue? The question was really: at what point is a public domain image trumped by a copyrighted subject within that image? Following the logic, I would wonder if even these photos if submitted as free images taken by the uploader would survive Wikiscrutiny.
    • You quoted me and wrote: "Their webpage clearly stated: "Smithsonian Content is identified as having “no known copyright restrictions” when the Smithsonian is unaware of any copyright restrictions on its use.". I provided the link." -- yes, and content wasn't identified as such on the page you linked to." Indeed it was: 2nd paragraph under "Intellectual Property Rights in Content".
    • You also have the Academy explicitly stating that simply accompanying “©A.M.P.A.S.®” with their image, satisfies their copyright - and specifically noting this includes "news and editorial" and "digital publications". But that's also not good enough for Commons? If this project is not either a news or editorial, digital publication, then exactly what, in your view, is it? But I don't mean to shoot the courier. I get the whole "free image" rubric.
    • While I'm an admitted relative neophyte to Commons, I also understand that Commons requirements are significantly more stringent than other Wikipedia. That, paradoxically, seems to run counterintuitive to the notion that people should attempt to upload their images to Commons first. Why, when it's more restrictive? In this case, I also understand that the subject of the image is not free, but I maintain that the image itself IS in the public domain. So for this reason, and to resolve this, I'll simply upload the image exclusively to the English Wikipedia - where I believe such draconian complications are moot. Hopefully.
    • Thanks for responding. X4n6 (talk) 07:37, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Yes, of course, it was my, not somebody else's opinion, based on facts, my experience with DRs, numerous previous similar DRs/speedy deletions, Commons policy and a court decision. I can repeat that I believe very strongly that there was not a single chance for this picture and there was no point to continue the DR discussion. Of course, it's possible that I've made a mistake, that this case is somewhat different from dozens of others, but honestly it's very unlikely. However you are free to use COM:UDEL process to try to undelete this picture.
  • Your opinion? A given. Policy, etc.? Possibly. Court decision? Not relevant, as explained below. Facts? Not all the facts. Interest in appeal to WC? Negligible, for reasons already stated. And reiterated below. X4n6 (talk) 12:38, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
  • "So basically, you have an agency of the U.S. federal government explicitly stating that in their own view, their own image is in the public domain. Yet that's not good enough for Commons?" -- copyright on Oscar is not their property, they can't release it in the public domain. And we don't even know who created the photo. It's possible that the picture was created by an employee of the agency, but it's also possible that the photo was created by some third-party contractor with costly photographic equipment (e.g. a third-party photographic studio). In this case it's not a work of the government (the government only paid for it), and is not free.
  • But where is your proof? Or is your random speculation alone supposed to substitute for proof? The source itself - an agency of the federal government - says "Courtesy of" that agency. Where is the credit to all these other phantom and alleged parties you reference? Moreover, where is your proof that it would even matter? If work is performed on behalf of the U.S. government, one generally cannot claim individual ownership of that work product. There may well be exceptions, but those exceptions would undoubtedly have to be enumerated contractually and permissible by law. But your capacity for hypotheticals notwithstanding, none of that is proven to be the case here. You've provided no facts or evidence to support your theories. Meanwhile, the only facts present are that an agency of the federal government - per U.S. policy re: free images - has explicitly permitted the usage of images it created and owns. Period. While your only response is to create fictional people and fantasy impediments. Again, without any provable basis in fact. X4n6 (talk) 12:38, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Commons use precaution principle (see COM:EVID), so the burden of proof lies on you, not on me. "Courtesy of" doesn't exactly mean "Created by", it's a much wider term. "If work is performed on behalf of the U.S. government, one generally cannot claim individual ownership of that work product." It's not true, see e.g. [3]. It depends on specific contract terms, and we have no idea what was written in that contract. Moreover, U.S. Government itself can hold copyright created by somebody else, and then transfered to the government, see w:Copyright status of work by the U.S. government for details. Trycatch (talk) 14:25, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Suggest you re-read COM:EVID. Specifically: "Typically that requires at least that the source of the file be specified." "Courtesy of" directly specifies the filesource. So my burden of proof, per the very Commons policy you cited, has been met since Day 1. However, your introduction of unproven fiction beyond that policy, shifts that burden of proof to you. Either meet your burden, or concede the point and move on. As regards your cherry-picked quote of my response and subsequent link, I'll simply refer you to my complete response: "If work is performed on behalf of the U.S. government, one generally cannot claim individual ownership of that work product. There may well be exceptions, but those exceptions would undoubtedly have to be enumerated contractually and permissible by law." Finally, citing a Wiki-English article as your source is, well... academically unacceptable - as most college professors would advise you. But since you introduced it, I'll refer you to the very first paragraph of your own source w:Copyright status of work by the U.S. government: "A work of the United States government, as defined by United States copyright law, is "a work prepared by an officer or employee of the U.S. government as part of that person's official duties."[1] The term only applies to the work of the federal government, including the governments of "non-organized territorial areas" under the jurisdiction of the U.S Government,[2] but not state or local governments. In general, under section 105 of the Copyright Act,[3] such works are not entitled to domestic copyright protection under U.S. law." But I'll also give you a more definitive source on U.S. copyright law, that itself demonstrates that even when additional sources are provided, if the work product is for the U.S. government then: "This is a work of the U.S. Government and is not subject to copyright protection in the United States." X4n6 (talk) 10:06, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
  • I read the court decision. It's precisely about what I said -- Oscar didn't fall in the public domain because of publication without a copyright notice, its copyright was successfully registered in 1941, so it's still copyrighted. If the current copyright law will not be changed, it will be copyrighted for 95 years after the publication (see Copyright Term and the Public Domain in the United States).
  • Irrelevant. As I've said before, the question of whether or not the Academy can copyright the Oscar has never been the issue. Of course it can - obviously it has. What has been at issue is how the Academy chooses to protect and enforce that copyright. That decision is exclusively theirs. Your court decision and copyright law only affirm that. They have already established those terms (see Editorial Use):
  • News and editorial uses of Academy symbols and marks in stories and articles appearing in newspapers, periodicals, digital publications, web sites and on television or in motion pictures, are subject to the following conditions:
  • all published representations of the Award of Merit statuette, including photographs, drawings and other likenesses, must include the legend “©A.M.P.A.S.®” to provide notice of copyright, trademark and service mark registration, and neither the marks “Academy Award®” nor “Oscar®” may be used to describe awards given by organizations other than the Academy. (An award may be described as “the Uruguayan equivalent of the Oscar Award,” but not as “the Uruguayan Oscar.”)
  • Nothing more. Nothing less. But this makes it a non-free image, suitable for English Wikipedia, but not Commons. Which is why I intend to upload it there exclusively. X4n6 (talk) 12:38, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Ok. I don't know if it's allowed to upload such a picture to English Wikipedia, but there is a Wikimedia Foundation wide principle -- content can be uploaded if 1) it's free for any use, etc. 2) under very strict fair use content policies 3) there is no third choice, everything not from (1) can be uploaded only if it fits to the very strict content restrictions of (2). Check w:WP:NFCC -- I don't know if this picture can be uploaded to en-wiki under these criterions. Trycatch (talk) 14:25, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Unlike Commons, English Wikipedia utilizes Template:PD-USGov. While 17 U.S.C. § 105 itself states: "Copyright protection under this title is not available for any work of the United States Government, but the United States Government is not precluded from receiving and holding copyrights transferred to it by assignment, bequest, or otherwise." Any w:WP:NFCC concerns also appear to be more than satisfied under w:WP:NFURG and w:WP:FAIRUSE. X4n6 (talk) 10:06, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
  • I don't know why you cite the ToS, it says in a nutshell that "Smithsonian Content is identified as having “no known copyright restrictions” when the Smithsonian is unaware of any copyright restrictions on its use." This particular picture was not identified as having "no known copyright restrictions". Quite the opposite, it was marked as "Photos for News Media Use Only" [4].
  • Incorrect. This photo is actually marked: "Photo courtesy of the Smithsonian's National Portrait Gallery". Under the heading "Related Content" is where the notice "Photos for News Media Use Only" is found. Note the plural "Photos" re: the Related Content. Only this singular photo is described on that page. X4n6 (talk) 12:38, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
  • That's what I said, it's not marked "no known copyright restrictions". Trycatch (talk) 14:25, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
  • No, because as I said, it's marked "Photo courtesy", which, as you now know from 17 U.S.C. § 105, is even better. X4n6 (talk) 10:06, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Commons is not only for Wikipedia or only for the web, it's a free media repository that can be used for any purposes. E.g. if you want to write a book (or print a Wikipedia article in book form), the permission from A.M.P.A.S. would not be enough.
  • But assuming you would want to copyright your own published book or article, you would obviously need to obtain and acknowledge their copyright, as expressed by Section 4 under their COPYRIGHTS AND TRADEMARKS. Undoubtedly there are cases where Commons media is not free, despite that stated goal. Someone would be very foolish to not seek legal review before republishing anything on this site. X4n6 (talk) 12:38, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
  • In this case even without any legal review it's apparent that the permission from A.M.P.A.S. is not suitable for e.g. books or paper articles. That's why such permissions are not allowed on Commons. Trycatch (talk) 14:25, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Exactly why your example was flawed. A.M.P.A.S. clearly distinguishes between the permission it automatically grants to websites like Wikipedia and Commons for news and editorial purposes; and the permission it may grant, in writing, on a case-by-case basis, to copyrighted books and articles. The originator of such content must adhere to the permissions relative to the use, since A.M.P.A.S. makes those distinctions. Even while Commons does not. X4n6 (talk) 10:06, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Commons licensing policy generally is not more strict that policy of Wikipedias, but Commons do not allow uploading of pictures under fair use rationale, while some local Wikipedias allow that. There are good reasons for this ban, see COM:FAIRUSE policy. The photo of an Oscar statuette used in w:Academy Award article, was uploaded under a fair use rationale, so there is no difference between English Wikipedia and Commons in this aspect -- both agree that photos of Oscar are not free. Commons is the best place to upload free pictures, but fair use pictures should be uploaded to Wikipedia. Trycatch (talk) 12:30, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Public domain images are also permitted at English Wikipedia. Notably, under English Wiki, this photo in their w:Academy Award article does not appear to stir anyone's concerns over violating Oscar's copyright. X4n6 (talk) 12:38, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Well, this discussion is fruitless, I'm off. The DR in question is very simple -- it's not a free picture, it can't be uploaded to Commons. If you want to contest the deletion, you are free to use COM:UDEL. Trycatch (talk) 11:33, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
  • I don't believe this discussion was fruitless. If I did, I would not have engaged in it. It's important to realize that despite your admin. status, and even though you said your decisions are "based on facts, my experience with DRs, numerous previous similar DRs/speedy deletions, Commons policy and a court decision", you can still be wrong. While you said that from the beginning, you then defended arguments even when it was proven much of the reasoning was flawed. Perhaps that realization alone made this a fruitful exercise moving forward. Finally, recall that I do have another available option that you didn't mention besides COM:UDEL. Upload file on English Wikipedia -- where an image does not need to be free -- but where this one is. X4n6 (talk) 19:56, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Of course I can be wrong, but I'm not in this case. It was a very obvious DR, it wasn't borderline, not even nearly. Yes, there is a permission (sort of) on the site of A.M.P.A.S., and it's likely that such permission would be enough to host the picture on a site like Commons or Wikipedia. But the licensing policies in Wikipedia and especially Commons are much stricter than "we allow to host it, if we have a legal right to host it", content should be free for any purposes, for everyone everywhere to be hosted on Commons. Commons requires a high degree of freedom for content, and the permission of A.M.P.A.S. simply is not free enough for Commons.
  • What about the photograph, the details about it (was it free as a work by the US Government? was it marked "no know copyright restrictions" on the site? etc.) were a moot point from the beginning, those details can't change the fact that Oscar statuettes are not in the PD, and therefore any photograph of an Academy Award is not free as well. Trycatch (talk) 20:37, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
  • More than once I have asked: at what point is a public domain image trumped by a copyrighted subject within that image? That question remains largely unanswered. But what was answered time and again regarding this image, is that the image itself is non-copyrighted and in the public domain, meaning that at least in the U.S., the image is free. Even though it's subject is not, but may still be available in the U.S. under "fair use". Here is an excellent resource you may wish to review, which confirms this position.
  • Therefore any impediment to the use of the image, as you've reinforced, lies not with the image itself - where permissions for its use are explicit and implicit, both from the image and it's subject - but with Commons policy. I believe on that we can agree and conclude. X4n6 (talk) 19:25, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Okay, we can agree on it. Trycatch (talk) 19:47, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Agreed. X4n6 (talk) 09:30, 18 May 2011 (UTC)


Stuff like this is pretty heartwarming to know that useful art isn't lost due to people's prejudices. I am curious though, if things are spuriously removed like that, it's pretty difficult to get them back because only admins would have the power to see all the data pertaining to the decision right? Dictabeard (talk) 15:04, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

  • Yes, in this case it was easy, because there was a recent DR publicly available for everyone, and multiple users participated in it, but for many pictures deleted for little or no reason at all (sometimes, speedy deleted without track anywhere but deletion logs) it's hard or impossible, because deleted gems are buried under tons of garbage, and there is no any real search in deleted media capability even for admins. Sometimes the only way to track a bad deletions is to analyze deletion logs, but 1) it's hard and time consuming, there aren't handy tools for it, while deletion logs are huge 2) it's possible only for admins, but admins generally don't want to sour relations with other admins. So in fact nobody do it. Trycatch (talk) 16:01, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

About Cher's picture

Oh... Forgive me! I thought that this picture was a violation of the copyrights. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Salamaleico (talk • contribs)

  • It's good that you've pointed out the picture where the watermark was removed, but the attribution data from the watermark wasn't moved to the description or metadata. I think it can be a violation of a Creative Commons license. Trycatch (talk) 18:52, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

File:DiversBC.JPG - request to revisit

Now that I've answered your points at Commons:Deletion requests/File:DiversBC.JPG, do you still maintain that the image as it stands should be kept? There are now two IPs from Tokyo that look remarkably similar and have their sole contributions there. The deletion notice was removed yesterday by another IP from Tokyo. The original uploader has changed the licence from PD to CC-BY-SA. There is so much wrong here that I hope you are no longer willing to reward these folks by allowing them to use Commons as a personal repository for their holiday snaps. --RexxS (talk) 11:15, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

  • Bad behavior by the uploader is not a reason to delete his useful pictures. Trycatch (talk) 02:50, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
I rather would suggest that the pictures are not useful, per se, as they feature the presumed uploader far more prominently than the diving equipment which is supposed to be the subject. The bad behaviour was intended to be an illustration of the problems associated with this image, not a suggested cause for deletion. Nevertheless, your recent argument at the deletion debate is compelling and I shall withdraw the nomination. I must now leave it to the good sense of editors at other wikiprojects what image they should use but several other much superior images are available at Category:Underwater diving buoyancy equipment. Sincere thanks for your help and guidance. --RexxS (talk) 14:14, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

File:Membrana kolbotshki kak konusniy volnovod.jpg

Ув. Trycatch, почему мой файл не открывается в моей галерее. Если я допустил ошибку, помогите исправить и пож., сообщите. С ув.--Moisey (talk) 04:48, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
Гм, у меня все работает. Возможно, это были какие-то очередные временные проблемы на сервере. Trycatch (talk) 06:55, 3 August 2011 (UTC)


Прошу вашего совета. [5] Мне надо что-нибудь делать?--PereslavlFoto (talk) 22:26, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

  • George Chernilevsky уже предупредил участника, разумеется, подобные угрозы со стороны администратора неприемлемы (к сожалению, это не первый подобный случай с A.Savin). С другой стороны, Викисклад большой и вы и в самом деле с легкостью можете не замечать друг друга, если у вас есть какой-то конфликт. Trycatch (talk) 07:43, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
    • Я растерялся, потому что не понимаю, что имеет в виду A.Savin. Насколько я понимаю, с одной стороны — ему не нравится, когда я выставляю на удаление его архитектурные съёмки в метро, которые все нарушают авторские права архитекторов. С другой стороны — он ярко реагирует на обсуждение его снимков на QI Candidates. Зная его серьёзное отношение, я не включаю там decline, а указываю режим discuss.--PereslavlFoto (talk) 13:20, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
      • Учитывая то, что принятие в близком будущем поправок, вводящих в России свободу панорамы, весьма вероятно, есть ли смысл в подобных запросах на удаление? Это же придется потом все восстанавливать... Т.е. формально вы правы, но вполне естественно, что подобные номинации раздражают фотографов, загрузивших эти фото на склад. Trycatch (talk) 15:12, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
        • Когда Медведев предложил отобрать у архитекторов права, я и бросил выставлять. Надеюсь, он и у фотографов отберёт права, и у скульпторов, а потом и у учёных, а то получается обидно для архитекторов. У всех творцов есть защита от создания производных, а у архитекторов не будет.--PereslavlFoto (talk) 21:51, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
          • То, о чем вы говорите, не соответствует действительности. Авторские права на производные работы у архитекторов никуда не исчезнут, их никто не предлагает отобрать. Trycatch (talk) 03:10, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
            • Значит, я чего-то не понимаю. Сейчас, если я хочу создать свободное производное произведение, я должен выкупить у автора права на производные произведения. Если же будет принята «свобода панорамы», автор потеряет возможность управлять правами на производные фотографии. Почему же вы пишете «никуда не исчезнут»?--PereslavlFoto (talk) 16:43, 7 August 2011 (UTC)


Ув. участник, вы не могли бы обратить внимание на хотя бы небольшую часть моих номинаций на удаление (см. по моему вкладу)? --Postoronniy-13 (talk) 12:25, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

  • ✓ Done Спасибо за качественное вылавливание копивио. Trycatch (talk) 15:12, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
    И вам спасибо за вашу работу. --Postoronniy-13 (talk) 12:30, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Darth Vader

I think the National Cathedral is OK, as you said, but please take a look at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Leon hot air balloon festival 2010.jpg‎, which appears to be the same problem. The uploader believes that anything in public anywhere ought to be free for us to use, see File:Hot_air_balloon_sans_darth_vader.jpg.

     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:56, 10 August 2011 (UTC)


Вы администратор. Тут Carschten увидел проблемы с моей фотографией и загрузил другую, чтобы объяснить мне, какие проблемы и как исправить. Потом он откатил на исходную. Теперь я загрузил исправленную. Пожалуйста, удалите прежние варианты, потому что они все хуже: исходная -- блёклая, а правленная участником Carschten -- сделана из jpeg и поэтому хуже моей, сделанной из tiff. Спасибо.--PereslavlFoto (talk) 14:46, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

  • Извините, что не отвечал -- некоторое время не заходил на Викисклад. ✓ Done. Хотя вам, конечно, виднее, но история изменений иногда бывает полезной, даже если все старые версии были хуже окончательной. Trycatch (talk) 00:31, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
    • Спасибо. Тут промежуточные версии были образцом для подражания, так что их утрата не важна.--PereslavlFoto (talk) 10:36, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

BadJPEG template discussion

Dcoetzee has modified the English message in BadJPEG template to prohibit its use for scans and photographs [6]. I think, such modification is irrelevant and was not agreed upon during the discussion. Moreover, no alternatives were proposed. I have expressed my concerns in the follow-ups. However, I'm afraid that my arguments are/will not be considered simply because of the personal dislike [7]. If you have time, please comment on the situation (link to the discussion). Any constructive opinion is greatly welcomed. Thanks in advance! — Mikhail Ryazanov (talk) 09:38, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

  • А почему вы не хотите создать новый шаблон, как и предлагает Dcoetzee? Trycatch (talk) 10:31, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
    • Лично на мой взгляд, тот, кто предлагает разводить шаблоны, должен сам создать новый и сам расставить его по местам. Иначе он просто создаёт беспокойство для тех, кому оно не нужно.--PereslavlFoto (talk) 11:52, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
      • Возможно вы и правы, но дискуссии о том, какая именно сторона спора должна сделать то или иное действие, редко бывают продуктивными. С тем же успехом можно утверждать, что Dcoetzee и другие первоначальные создатели шаблона BadJPEG никогда не вкладывали в него те смыслы, которые в него вкладывает Mikhail Ryazanov, и что Mikhail Ryazanov должен создать для этих новых смыслов новый шаблон, если ему это необходимо, а не впихивать новые смыслы в посторонний шаблон, создававшийся совсем для других целей. Почему бы не создать шаблон, например, {{JPEGArtifacts}}, который будет сразу изначально предназначен для фотографий и сканов с заметными JPEG-артефактами и будет изначально содержать осмысленный для этого случая текст? Trycatch (talk) 12:52, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
        • С таким подходом полностью соглашаюсь. Создатель шаблона лучше знает, зачем создан шаблон и какой его смысл.--PereslavlFoto (talk) 14:11, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
          • Я не совсем понимаю утверждения, что BadJPEG был "создан для других целей". Во всех известных мне воплощениях (шаблоны в Википедиях и на разных языках в Commons) он недвусмысленно говорит, что JPEG является неподходящим форматом для данного изображения, и желательно бы загрузить его в более уместном формате. Никаких намёков на метод получения изображения там нет (теперь появились только в BadJPEG/en) и, по идее, быть не должно. Можно, конечно, создать отдельный шаблон для сканированных изображений, но как я уже объяснял в обсуждении, его функции будут абсолютно идентичны существующему. Никаких разумных объяснений, почему нельзя обойтись одним шаблоном (в его старой редакции), приведено так и не было. Какой тогда смысл создавать дубли?
            Другое дело, что, как было упомянуто, некоторые эмоциональные пользователи сильно обижаются, несмотря но то, что формально сообщение написано вполне нейтрально. Мне кажется, было бы гораздо полезнее поработать над существующим текстом с психологической точки зрения. И таки сменить название. :-) JPEGArtifacts, пожалуй, не очень удачное, поскольку уже есть {{Artifacts}} именно про них, но применительно к не-JPEG файлам. К тому же, проблема часто не в том, что сами изображения содержат артефакты (иногда вообще малозаметные), а в том, что JPEG всегда уменьшается в JPEG с довольно поганым качеством, и загрузка более качественного JPEGа этого не исправит (и скорее всего бессмысленна, ибо при хорошем качестве лучше уж сразу PNG загрузить). "ShouldNotBeJPEG" (по аналогии с {{ShouldBePNG}} и {{ShouldBeSVG}}) выглядело бы разумно, но длинновато. Есть идеи насчёт короткой версии без слова "bad"?
            Mikhail Ryazanov (talk) 03:37, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
            • В принципе, я с вами согласен, что нет смысла размножать почти одинаковые шаблоны, а с созданием нового шаблона будет уже три разных тега, сообщающих практически об одном и том же -- о наличии JPEG-артефактов на изображении. С другой стороны, особого смысла идти на конфронтацию со значительным числом участников из-за такого вопроса я тоже не вижу. "ShouldNotBeJPEG" -- не уверен, что в сообществе есть консенсус по поводу того, что какие-то типы сканов или фотографий не должны быть JPEG из-за того, что MediaWiki создает плохие миниатюры для этого формата. Вообще, гораздо больше распространена жалоба на PNG-миниатюры, на то, что они нерезкие и размазанные (ЕМНИП были даже товарищи, которые загружали копии PNG-файлов в JPEG только для того, чтобы получить лучшую миниатюру). Вы, конечно, можете создать шаблон ShouldNotBeJPEG, но не удивляйтесь потом, что его будут снимать точно так же, как и BadJPEG. Trycatch (talk) 11:26, 29 August 2011 (UTC)


Would you take a try at this, please? He doesn't seem to understand me completely -- or at least isn't doing it -- see Commons:Deletion requests/File:Mozaik 13 salavat.jpg. Thanks,      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:44, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

  • Thanks for the notice, I'll try to explain. By the way I believe that the most of photos uploaded by him (with exception of FOP copyvios and few other photos) were deleted erroneously (maybe because of the language barrier or something) -- he was caught in "stealing" of his own photos from his own Flickr and Yandex photostreams, and from his own website. So probably I'll nominate some of the deleted photos on COM:UDEL. Trycatch (talk) 15:49, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
If you see any wrongly deleted images that were my closures and you're sure that they're OK, feel free to just restore them if you want -- your judgement is just as good as mine and you speak the relevant language.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:03, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Дивная формулировка

Pushkin Alexander self portret, 1829.jpg Всем срочно дожить!
[8] - "Умри, Денис, но лучше не напишешь!" Всем прочим, окромя Дениса, - срочно перейти на здоровый образ жизни, ибо надо же как-то дожить до такого чуда! NVO (talk) 02:54, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
  • Спасибо! Хотя чудом в данной ситуации была бы победа здравого смысла на Викискладе, а 2025 год -- это лишь оптимистичный прогноз. Trycatch (talk) 14:02, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

File:Poster Petropavlovsky Anton disappearance.jpg

Добрый день, можете обратить внимание на этот файл?--Хомелка (talk) 19:39, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

  • ✓ Done Номинировал на быстрое, обратился к участнику. Trycatch (talk) 19:59, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
  • Ответил вам на своей СО. По-моему, вы неправы. Тривиальное изображение (уличное объявление) и невозможность нарушить прайвеси, потому что человек мертв. Таким же дериватом будет являться если сложу кораблик из газеты и его сфотографирую. А касаемо погибшего человека - вы предлагаете фото всех мертвецов удалить? Призываю еще подумать над вопросом. Не совсем все так просто. Leksey (talk) 20:09, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
  • Ответил на вашей СО. Если вы считаете удаление спорным, то вы можете перевести быстрое удаление в "медленное". На мой взгляд, оно достаточно очевидно. Хотя, конечно, можно замазать лицо, ФИО и попытаться таким образом сохранить эту загрузку, но имеет ли смысл? Trycatch (talk) 20:40, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
Там ещё СО файла "повисло"--Хомелка (talk) 13:35, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Deletion of File:Joey_Styles.jpg

Hi Trycatch!! I was taking a look through deletions and you stated you were going to delete the File:Joey_Styles.jpg file and I noticed it wasn't deleted. I know sometimes that happens. I just wanted to let you know. Thanks for all you do on Commons!! Missvain (talk) 13:29, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

  • Thanks for the notice, I've deleted and redirected it (standard procedure for duplicates). Trycatch (talk) 10:08, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

A kitten for you!

Red Kitten 01.jpg


Leksey (talk) 18:54, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Спасибо! --Trycatch (talk) 12:08, 18 September 2011 (UTC)


I would appreciate it if you could explain to me for my better understanding why this image File:One_eskimO.jpg was kept. I cited a fairly clear template that explains why the image is out of scope and the only other editor in the discussion who expressed an opinion was for a delete. The No Advertising template states, "Wikimedia Commons has an educational purpose, and is not the place to post promotional links or to advertise. Creating articles, userpages, templates, etc. with promotional text is not permitted, nor is the posting of links anywhere on the Commons in an attempt to advertise a website, product, company, person, or organization." The image clearly is promotional and has a link in it. Thanks for your time. Warfieldian (talk) 22:42, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

  • DRs are not votings, but discussions -- if there is no valid reason for deletion, the file should not be deleted, no matter how many "Symbol delete vote.svg Delete per nom" votes would be there. In that case there was actually nothing to discuss, because the file was in use in other project's main space, so it was automatically in scope. See COM:SCOPE#File in use in another Wikimedia project: "A media file that is in use on one of the other projects of the Wikimedia Foundation is considered automatically to be useful for an educational purpose, as is a file in use for some operational reason such as within a template or the like." COM:SCOPE is sometimes badly written, and the clause you cite of course doesn't mean that advertising are not in scope per se (we have thousands of pics in Category:Advertisements) -- only pictures that otherwise are not educationally useful. Trycatch (talk) 12:07, 18 September 2011 (UTC)


Здравствуйте. Я получил разрешение у автора загрузить фотографии села Центорой в википедию все фотографии на сайте Центорой | Хоси-Юрт | Центорой подскажите пожалуйста что я должен сделать дальше? С уважением Дагиров Умар (talk) 14:04, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

  • Если вы получили разрешение по почте, то перешлите его в службу OTRS со всеми заголовками и т.д. Если еще нет, то следуйте инструкциям, приведенным на Commons:OTRS/ru. Т.е. вам нужно либо попросить фотографа переслать вам письмо со шаблонным разрешением (которые вы потом перешлете на, либо попросить фотографа сразу послать шаблонное разрешение на В общем, посмотрите на Commons:OTRS/ru, там процесс получения разрешения описан подробнее и лучше. Trycatch (talk) 14:20, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Разрешение я получил на свой почтовый ящик из сайта вот адрес ( там к сожалению несколько слов по этому я попросил отправить сообщение на адрес Дагиров Умар (talk) 14:49, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Да, вы можете сразу загрузить изображения с этого сайта, которые вам нужны, поставив на них шаблон {{OTRSPending}} (OTRS ожидается). Trycatch (talk) 12:17, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Я загрузил фотографию File:Мечеть в Гордали.jpg разрешение автор Саидами Кайсаров отправил но вот проблема фото я взял с сайта одноклассники чтобы посмотреть фото на сайте одноклассники надо зарегистрироваться а также фото у негоже есть на майле тут. Дагиров Умар (talk) 21:56, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

В шаблоне разрешение он дал эту ссылку. Дагиров Умар (talk) 22:08, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

  • Если волонтеру потребуется дополнительная информация, то он пошлет вам или фотографу письмо (хотя возможны варианты, разумеется). Если будут какие-то проблемы с этим разрешением, то вы можете обратиться к какому-нибудь из русскоязычных OTRS-волонтеров напрямую. Список OTRS-волонтеров по языкам доступен тут -- Commons:OTRS/List of members by language, но не все из них сколько-нибудь активны в проекты. Trycatch (talk) 23:32, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Понятно. Дагиров Умар (talk) 15:09, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Request to undelete Al Thoura.jpg and File:Thoura.svg

I images have been deleted AGAIN by Jameslwoodward under the claim that it's a copyright violation. I would like to point out the original image pre-dates my existences on this planet; The image was been PD for the longest time. Since then it has been modified over a million time and has been used more different purposes. I you google "revolution fist" and click on the images, you will see what I am talking about. -- The Egyptian Liberal (talk) 23:30, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

  • Idea of "revolution fist" is old and fell in the public domain already? Without any doubt (not to mention that ideas can't be protected by copyright in the first place). The particular "revolution fist" poster you used is old and free? I don't see any proof of this. Moreover, I am almost sure that it was first published in the digital era (look at e.g. the font), so there is no way it can be free. Anyway, the burden of proof lies on you as the uploader. And anyway, you didn't cite the original artwork (even if it was in the public domain) as you ought to do. Trycatch (talk) 12:15, 21 September 2011 (UTC)


Здравствуйте участником User:Adrignola были массово удалены фотографии, на которые было получено разрешение, к примеру, как здесь. Дагиров Умар (talk) 03:22, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Все фотографии были отсюда как я писал выше разрешение было на все отправлено и получено. Дагиров Умар (talk) 03:26, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
Adrignola пишет, что не может подтвердить разрешение, т.к. фотографии не сопоставлены с e-mail адресом, с которого было послано письмо с разрешением, да и русского языка он не знает (теряюсь в догадках, зачем он стал рассматривать запрос на незнакомом ему языке). К сожалению, я не являюсь OTRS-волонтером (да и администратором я тоже более не являюсь), поэтому мне сложно сказать что-нибудь осмысленное по данному случаю. Я вижу, что вы уже обратились в Ahonc (он и OTRS-волонтер, и администратор), возможно, он поможет вам с этим разрешением и восстановит файлы. Также можно обратиться к User:Rubin16 или User:Butko за помощью (они тоже одновременно администраторы и OTRS-волонтеры). Trycatch (talk) 09:32, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
Спасибо за ответ. Ahonc помог. С уважением -- Дагиров Умар (talk) 22:11, 31 October 2011 (UTC)


I've marked an image that you've cropped for deletion. Please see Commons:Deletion_requests/Images_uploaded_by_the_Duke_of_Geography. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 19:24, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

File:Eye full.jpg

Just FYI, I actually am a Commons admin, and did review that image before uploading it here :) I probably should have tagged it as reviewed but anyways ... - Alison 00:38, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

  • It's a bad idea to review your own uploads anyway. It's always good to have two pair of eyes (especially, eyes of a cold robot -- people make mistakes all the time). See Commons:License review#Instructions for reviewers. And yeah, in case of any trouble the picture without a formal review tag almost certainly is a goner, no matter who was the uploader. Trycatch (talk) 18:51, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Ссылка на форум

Здравствуйте я много нахожу в сети особенно на форумах старинные фотографии у которых авторские права истекли. Можно ли давать ссылки на форумы загружая эти фотографии? -- Дагиров Умар (talk) 11:41, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

  • К сожалению, тут могут прикопаться. Проблема в том, что формально для не слишком древних фотографий (скажем, начало XX века) обычно (для большинства стран, хотя есть исключения) нужно доказать две вещи 1) дату первой публикации 2) анонимность этой публикации (либо нужно знать автора и дату его смерти, с чем обычно есть проблемы). Связано это с тем, что срок действия авторского права анонимных произведений в большинстве стран отсчитывается от момента публикации (обычно 70 лет с момента публикации), а не создания работы. Если же фотография неанонимна, то срок действия АП отсчитывается с момента смерти автора -- а это может быть очень длительный промежуток времени. Например, Борис Ефимов, публиковавший свои карикатуры еще в 1917 году, умер в 2009. Т.е. его работы будут защищаться до 2080 (2009 + 70 лет + 1), 163 года для ранних работ. Для фотографий с форумов ни пункта 1, ни пункта 2 доказать обычно не получается, что сразу помещает эти фото в серую зону для Викисклада. Но даже если имя фотографа известно, то дату его смерти узнать обычно очень сложно. В итоге получается ситуация, когда даже родственники какого-нибудь персоны не могут загрузить ее фотопортрет, т.к. фото делал неизвестный фотограф неизвестного фотоателье, а фотография никогда не публиковалась.
  • Поэтому лучше загружать фотографии, только если место и время первой публикации точно известно (например, брать фото из старых книг), либо известна дата смерти автора, либо можно быть уверенным, что автор умер более 70 лет назад (скажем, для фотографий середины XIX века). Trycatch (talk) 18:51, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
Понятно. Спасибо. Дагиров Умар (talk) 21:54, 22 December 2011 (UTC)