User talk:Stefan2

Archives /Arkiv 1

See also: Special:CentralAuth/Stefan2.

Copyright violation

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Michael_Braun1995-04-12.jpeg this image was deleted but i have permission from the photographer, how do i get this image to work again. it won't let me reupload it.

File:Copa_del_mundo.png — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.20.69.216 (talk • contribs) 2014-07-04T17:34:51 (UTC)

See Commons:Deletion requests/File:Copa del mundo.png. --Stefan4 (talk) 13:05, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Is this public domain?

Main gallery: Commons:Deletion requests/File:MN Stockholm.jpg.

Hi, May I request your opinion? File:MN Stockholm.jpg is a postcard issued by the Swedish American Line, based in Göteborg. The PD-Italy tag used by the uploader is probably inapplicable, as it is unlikely that the image was first published in Italy. But, as it was probably first published in Sweden, would it meet the conditions of PD-Sweden-photo? I am not familiar with the conditions of that tag. -- Asclepias (talk) 01:16, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

User:Denniss nominated the file for deletion, so I replied in the deletion discussion. --Stefan4 (talk) 13:12, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Deletion nomination for Trinidad and Tobago and Guyanese passports

Can you provide justification for the nomination for the deletion of these images? These images in no way violate any copyright laws of Wikipedia have been composed by me (Saltprune416). If Wikipedia and further users like yourself continue this modus operandi, pretty soon I will remove all my contributions to this website as it goes against fair inclusion and contribution to the tenets of this database. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Saltprune416 (talk • contribs) 2014-07-12T15:17:46‎ (UTC)

The uploader claims to have designed the passports, but has not provided any evidence that this is the case. Passports are typically created by governments. --Stefan4 (talk) 15:24, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

There isn't any claim on design. The image like thousands of others on Wikipedia were taken and are fair use. Images of scenery are not designed by the photographer, the same way an image of a passport is simply a depiction of an object that exists by said photographer. Passports are indeed owned by governments, but a search on the majority of passport pages uploaded and complimentary photos show no evidence that they have been uploaded by either governments nor sourced from government websites. I'd like it if you highlight government contributions to the following pages and passports: Canadian, American, British, European Union passports etc.

Would it be better if I were to draw the passport as I see it then upload it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Saltprune416 (talk • contribs) 2014-07-12T16:49:01 (UTC)

Fair use claims are not valid on Commons, see COM:FU. Non-free passports need permission from the government that created it. --Stefan4 (talk) 17:02, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Please give me some time to ask permission from the governments involved to use said images of the passport that are freely available online and to anyone with a camera to upload. Will respond momentarily. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Saltprune416 (talk • contribs) 2014-07-12T17:12:15 (UTC)

If you obtain permission, make sure that the permission is usable by anyone. See COM:OTRS for instructions on where to send the permission for verification. --Stefan4 (talk) 17:34, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Puisque vous affirmez que les photos de passeports sont sujettes à autorisations préalables des gouvernements qui les délivrent, pouvez-vous m'indiquer quel loi/décret/arrêté... concerne les passeports que délivre l'Etat français. Merci d'avance. Cordialement. Barbe-Noire (talk) 12:51, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Hej

Kik lige på Commons:Deletion requests/File:Post Danmark logo.svg.png. Hilsen --Søren1997 ^{(talk // contributions)} 18:14, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

File source is not properly indicated: File:NanoIntegris logo.jpg

This media was probably deleted.

A file that you have uploaded to Wikimedia Commons, File:NanoIntegris logo.jpg, was missing information about where it comes from or who created it, which is needed to verify its copyright status. The file probably has been deleted. If you've got all required information, request undeletion providing this information and the link to the concerned file ([[:File:NanoIntegris logo.jpg]]). If you created the content yourself, enter {{own}} as the source. If you did not add a licensing template, you must add one. You may use, for example, {{self|GFDL|cc-by-sa-all}} or {{Cc-zero}} to release certain rights to your work. If someone else created the content, or if it is based on someone else's work, the source should be the address to the web page where you found it, the name and ISBN of the book you scanned it from, or similar. You should also name the author, provide verifiable information to show that the content is in the public domain or has been published under a free license by its author, and add an appropriate template identifying the public domain or licensing status, if you have not already done so. Please add the required information for this and other files you have uploaded before adding more files. If you need assistance, please ask at the help desk. Thank you!

Ellin Beltz (talk) 23:58, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

RfC on the scope of file renaming criterion 2

Pursuant to the closing of the RFC "Proposed overhaul of the "Which files should be renamed?" section", a second RfC has been opened at Commons:Requests for comment/File renaming criterion 2 specifically to address the scope of criterion 2, which currently reads "To change from a completely meaningless name to a name that describes what the image displays." Since you participated in the initial discussion, I am notifying you of the follow-up RfC.

Please note that I fully anticipate that the first few days will see a number of additional options proposed, so it may be a good idea to check back periodically on the RfC.

Thank you. Sven Manguard Wha? 01:43, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

AN/U

I've re-activated that AN/U regarding your approach to DR. See 'Stefan4'.Ultra7 (talk) 14:59, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

A third opinion

Hi.

Can I please have your opinion on this: File talk:Microsoft logo.svg#DOCTYPE. The discussion has started badly and I think a third opinion would definitely be needed.

Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 10:37, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Explicación

Me gustaría que razonaras tus cambios. No entiendes que es un enlace muerto y nulo. --Parair (talk) 20:25, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

I stand corrected

Thank you for providing me with knowledge about the fact that the Swedish passport design is not, in fact, freely usable. I should have researched more about what rules apply to passports of this kind. Jag tackar för det...

-User:Pixelmaniac pictures (leave a reply)

Sibelius Monument

Thanks for the notification, I was not aware that Finnish copyright law is so strict as to forbid publishing photos of monuments on public spaces. Very strange. --FlavrSavr (talk) 14:26, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

File:Type 039 submarine.jpg

Please, do not remove Flickr review failed templete while nominating for deletion. Thanks. Ankry (talk) 18:49, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

The file has been deleted. Which template did I remove? Judging from the notification on the uploader's talk page, it seems that I used the standard license reviewing script which I assume most people use for reviewing Flickr files. --Stefan4 (talk) 18:52, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Modern buidings in South Korea

Hi Stefan4 I would very much welcome your thoughts at Commons:Village_pump/Copyright#No_Commercial_reuse_FoP_in_South_Korea.2C_files_of_modern_buildings. Thanks--KTo288 (talk) 10:56, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

File:Guerrillafilmica.png

This image was deleted because of a possible copyright violation.

I'm sorry about this. Is the second time it happends to me. I'm still learnig about how to properly upload media to Wikimedia commons. I swear, I've read about licenses and all that stuff but is a little bit complicated information to me, especially at the moment when I have to choose the proper licensing for uploaded files.

I didn't mean to violate any Copyright, I have never wanted to do it. So, please help me and guide me to upload correctly this image.

I digitized the image by scanning the cover of the book. I corrected yellow areas and changed resolution. Please tell me, will it be right if I upload the image again and add the following information?

Thanks for you help.

Sicerely, Wikiyashir (talk) 00:59, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

This seems to be about an image for the article es:Canal 6 de Julio, la guerrilla fílmica on Spanish Wikipedia. Spanish Wikipedia does not accept any fair use images. You may also not upload any fair use images to Wikimedia Commons If you wish to use the image in the article, then you must ask the copyright holder to follow the procedure at COM:OTRS. --Stefan4 (talk) 14:08, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Tanks for your answer.

I am intended to create an english version of that article, I think fair use image can be used, doesn't it?

canalseisdejulio it's not a trade mark but a Non-profit organization, they aloud free distribution of their content... how should I proceed?

For the use of the image on Spanish Wikipedia I most contact to canalseisdejulio, right?

I'll correct it... Please give me time.

Sincerely Wikiyashir (talk) 05:07, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

The cover can be used in an English version of es:Canal 6 de Julio, la guerrilla fílmica using w:Template:Non-free book cover. Remember to fill in w:Template:Non-free use rationale book cover, or alternatively use the upload wizard, w:Wikipedia:File Upload Wizard, which should help you with that. --Stefan4 (talk) 13:02, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Thank you a lot for helping me.

I'll check the info and I'll work on it. I'm going to search info about logos and DVD/VHS covers, too... I don't want to be tagged as a Copyright infractor again.

Sincerely Wikiyashir (talk) 01:05, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

About your copyvio tag

Hello there Stefan4, you tagged files which I created and uploaded based on the design by ummjackson, dogecoin co-founder, which is freely licensed [1], I didn't understand at first why the image on wikipedia had a commercial license for that, since the image itself is creative commons and the project is released under MIT open license [2] [3], so I found your tagging a little impulsive and unnecessary, please before adding such a tag, call for a discussion, or open a request for comment or request for deletion. Thanks in advance Eduemoni (talk) 16:25, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

And you may cite Original_Doge_meme.jpg as reference, however the photo illustration itself is not original, it is a raster version, while mine is a vector, comprising of geometric forms and the pictures diverges, they are clearly not the same. Eduemoni (talk) 16:29, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

It is a copyright violation to state that a file licensed under {{mit}} is licensed under {{cc-zero}}.

There is no evidence that "kabosu112", who posted this blog post, has licensed the photograph of which this is a derivative work under any license whatsoever. --Stefan4 (talk) 16:58, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

As it may seem you don't understand about licensing, or I was not clear enough, the dogecoin project is licensed under MIT license, and the image itself is creative commons. Wasn't it clear enough? Eduemoni (talk) 01:58, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Copyright status: File:Moriyama and Tokojiro.jpg

Stefan4,

Thank you for your warning about the copyright status of above mentioned file. As this is my first appearance here, I hope you will excuse me if this is not the right way to reply to your notification. I would like to stress, furthermore, that as a writer, filmmaker and photographer I try to be as keen as possible when it comes to copyrights.

This said, the picture is a hand colored version of a photo taken around 1860. A copy with a unknown copyrightstatus (via Photoshop) can be found here: http://digital-archives.ccny.cuny.edu/exhibits/harris/moyiyama_pop.html. The colored photo which I uploaded, with a unknown copyrightstatus as well, can be found here: http://friendsofmacdonald.com/wp-content/gallery/main/perrys-interpreters-ranalds-students.jpg. As for the latest reference, I contacted the Friends of MacDonald and we had this 'conversation'.

Fred (me) to Alice, member of the Friends of MacDonald:

do you think, alice, that this picture from the fom-site is free of rights? in other words, is it allowed to use it in a wikipedia entry on einosuke moriyama? and if you don't know, who knows? http://friendsofmacdonald.com/wp-content/gallery/main/perrys-interpreters-ranalds-students.jpg

Alice to Fred:

It is just as 'free' as the two images of Ranald (MacDonald, fd). There is also a daguerreotype of Moriyama sitting with a group of other men (though not the group of students, I'm pretty sure of that). I would not worry about using the image.

That is as far as I can get. For the time being I did not use the picture in the Dutch wiki for Einosuke Moriyama. Instead I used a 'french' one already in this pages.

Einosuke Moriyama (links)

I certainly hope that this will do for being able to use the file Moriyama and Tokojiro.jpg.

Sincerely,

Fred Dijs — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fred Dijs (talk • contribs) 2014-08-25T19:59:27 (UTC)

If this was created in the mid-19th century, then why did you specify on the file information page that it was drawn today?

I did not specify the date of the file, Stefan4, the computer did when saving the file from the web. The above is not about the file, but about the picture. The picture can not be dated exactly, neither the original photograph, nor the colored one. Anyway, I tried to explain the background, I am not making a or my point, I hope to upload a beautiful picture from former times. And help is appreciated. It is the first time I use these pages, as already stated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fred Dijs (talk • contribs)

In the meantime I found the photographer and the year he took the picture. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fred Dijs (talk • contribs)

In Japan, the general rule is that something is in the public domain if the person who created it has been dead for more than 50 years. In this case, the person has been dead for more than twice that time, so the image is clearly in the public domain in Japan. --Stefan4 (talk) 12:51, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

KOAAcom logo

Hello. I wasn't aware that I had overwritten the image. I'm sorry if I did, I didn't mean too. Is there a file already with the name or has it been converted? Once again, sorry. Corkythehornetfan^Talk 00:14, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

The file will probably be split by an administrator eventually. There was already a different logo under the same file name (same design but in a different colour). --Stefan4 (talk) 12:53, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Malcolm

Hej! Jag missade någon vital kryssruta när jag la upp bilden på Malcolm Dixelius. Jag är osäker på hur jag korrigerar det på själva sidan, du kanske kan tipsa mig om det? Tack och bock på förhand. (Och jag bara utgår från att du pratar svenska, säg till annars.) Marfuas (talk) 10:12, 27 August 2014 (UTC) Hej igen! Glöm det, jag är nästan helt säker på att Fores bilder låg under CC-BY, men det gjorde de tydligen inte. Radera på, om du har den makten. Marfuas (talk) 10:27, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

CC-BY-NC går inte bra, så den filer kommer att raderas. Jag föreslår att du i fortsättningen använder toollabs:flickr2commons för att ladda upp filer från Flickr. Då kontrolleras det automatiskt att filen är under en giltig licens. --Stefan4 (talk) 12:59, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

What should I do with own designs?

You've sent me a message in my talk page. The mentioned Logo is my own work (design). What should I do to avoid deleting it? Mhhossein (talk) 13:33, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Logos are usually not created by Commons users, so you will need to send evidence that you created it to OTRS. See COM:OTRS for instructions. --Stefan4 (talk) 13:45, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

re "Better source request for File:Yorkshire Museum, York (Eboracum) (7685208580) 2.jpg"

As I clearly wrote in the upload information for the file, it is altered from the existing file File:Yorkshire Museum, York (Eboracum) (7685208580).jpg. The copyright allows for alterations if the source is credited, which it was. I did try to find the original file on Flickr, but the uploader of File:Yorkshire Museum, York (Eboracum) (7685208580).jpg only provided a link to the author's page. However, the original upload was checked and confirmed by the bot User:File Upload Bot (Magnus Manske). Paul Barlow (talk) 18:12, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Read the Infobox properly

If you don't stop edit warring, i'm going to file a request for mediation. The date for photographs is 1958 and not 1941.

{{PD-India}}{{PD-India-URAA}}Myopia123 (talk) 19:40, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Do not remove information that a file is up for deletion. This just risks causing confusion to users who are not aware that the files are listed for deletion. You need to read the text more carefully. As you can see at w:WP:URAA:

• For photographs taken before 1908, the term in India is 50 years from creation.
• For other photographs published before 1941, the term in India is 50 years from publication.
• For other photographs, the term in India is 60 years from publication.

You must show that the photograph isn't protected by copyright in the United States. This can only be the case if the copyright already had expired in India as of 1996. Otherwise, the term in the United States is 95 years from publication. This is what gives you the 1941 rule. Keep in mind that many photographs might not be published until some time after they were taken. For example, family photographs are usually not published at all. You must therefore provide evidence of publication. --Stefan4 (talk) 19:59, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Stop making up your own rules. As far as I can tell, you are breaking with Wikipedia policy.Myopia123 (talk) 20:48, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

That law lists BOTH US and Indian laws. It is used for images of everyone from Mahatma Gandhi to Rahul Gandhi. You obviously have an agenda and you are breaking with multiple wikipedia policies, including NPOV.Myopia123 (talk) 20:49, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

You have added several copyright tags, but without providing any evidence that either of them applies to the files to which you have added them. --Stefan4 (talk) 21:01, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Adminship

Hi Stefan4. If you ever feel the urge to become an admin, I'd be happy to act as nominator. As others have noted, many of us think that you are one already, and I'm sure you'll be great at it.--KTo288 (talk) 13:06, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

I think a lot of people would support a Stefan4 nomination but I recall that he has previously decided against running because of "certain security risks". Green Giant (talk) 14:48, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

• The problem is that the law about responsibility for bulletin board systems requires certain people to remove content which violates certain laws, such as the copyright law. The law identifies two kinds of people who need to remove content:[4]

1. A person who provides a "bulletin board system". For example, Commons is a "bulletin board system" under the law.
2. Someone who supervises the service on behalf of the provider.

The first kind of people must also provide their identity to everyone who connects to the service. This is similar to 17 U.S.C. § 512 (c) (2), which requires the Wikimedia Foundation to identify itself to Commons readers.

Under Swedish law, it seems likely that a user who holds the "delete" user right is a person of either "type 1" or "type 2", meaning that the user needs to delete any files which violate the Swedish copyright law as soon as the user becomes aware of the files, or face legal problems. Commons hosts plenty of files which are unfree in Sweden, usually because of lack of the rule of the shorter term for works by EEA citizens (e.g. {{PD-Italy}} created after 1968), or because of the lack of respect for related rights for photographic images. The law also requires deleting some other material such as "obvious child pornography" and "obvious hate speech". However, such other material would typically be deleted anyway for being out of scope (harassment and/or illegal in the United States). By not holding any deletion rights on Commons, I try to stay away from this problem. --Stefan4 (talk) 15:34, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your answer, its a shame that becoming an admin would place you in a untenable position, but admin or not thank you for your work and insight.--KTo288 (talk) 22:45, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Comment by Salah- 56789 (talk · contribs)

I do not speak English well I've signed a mistake Please delete the image --Salah- 56789 (talk) 17:06, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

The file, File:Oujda222.jpg, has been deleted by someone. --Stefan4 (talk) 20:48, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Copyright of Indian images

Hi,

I am very disappointed by your message here. I already reverted your attempt to change the template {{PD-India}}. I told you that I have a confirmation by a professional lawyer. Your edit is counterproductive. I expect better. Regards, Yann (talk) 16:24, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Seconded. Stefan4 has been overly aggressive in this matter.Myopia123 (talk) 14:24, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Sorry. There are dozens of pages all over the place which indicate copyright rules for India, and they all contradict each other, thus confusing me. Even recent statements by User:Yann contradict each other. The {{PD-India}} template also states different things in different languages. I was hoping that Yann would be able to clarify exactly how it works and also add relevant references to the various pages, but I guess I expressed myself improperly.

As far as I can see, there are three different copyright laws which provide three different copyright terms:

• The 1911 law: 50 years from creation. There is also the 1914 law which doesn't seem to have changed any terms. Some pages, such as w:WP:URAA, COM:CRTIND and the English and Italian versions of {{PD-India}}, state that photographs remain in the public domain if this term already had expired when the law was changed in 1957. On the other hand, {{PD-India}} in Dutch and Portuguese only mentions one term (60 years from publication), which would require copyright restoration of works which had already fallen into the public domain by 1957.
• The 1957 law: 50 years from publication. Some pages (such as w:WP:URAA) suggest that existing photographs had a term extension from 50 years from creation to 50 years from publication. Other pages, such as COM:CRTIND, suggest that this longer term didn't affect preexisting photographs but only new photographs.
• The 1992 law: all terms extended by 10 years. In this edit, Yann wrote that this extension didn't affect preexisting photographs, at least not pre-1958 ones. On the other hand, in this edit, Yann wrote that photographs from 1942-45 were not yet in the public domain in India as of 1996 (thereby implying an extension to 60 years from creation for preexisting photographs), whereas photographs from 1957 already are in the public domain in India (implying a term shorter than 60 years from creation). Yann's second edit seems to contradict itself, and it also seems to contradict Yann's first edit. With regard to the Indian copyright status, it is necessary to know what happened here until the end of 2018. Other affected countries are at least the United States (URAA) and New Zealand (rule of the shorter term abolished in 1994 according to w:Rule of the shorter term).

I hope that Yann or someone else can clarify all of these contradictions and update all relevant pages. --Stefan4 (talk) 15:23, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

The point is that the 1957 law is not retroactive, therefore all pictures upto 1957 are in the public domain (50 years after creation). It seems obvious that here, I mean not in the public domain in USA because of URAA, but still in the public domain in India. I am not sure what the Wikipedia page means, it may be wrong. I suppose that the Dutch and Portuguese versions were not updated (the Engish had a different information before). Regards, Yann (talk) 15:28, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

But in this edit, you wrote that photographs from 1942-45 still were copyrighted in India as of 1996, although they were more than 50 years old at that point. --Stefan4 (talk) 15:50, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

I didn't say that. Please read again. Yann (talk) 17:08, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Just one more point of consideration for this discussion specifically about pictures from Indian Military websites(rank insignia, medals, portraits of awardees etc). The Indian Government(the assumed copyright holder, until the public dispute vs copyrighted dispute is settled) is NEVER going to sue someone for using images in Wikipedia articles. While I understand this may be hard for americans to understand, India is not a litigious society.Myopia123 (talk) 13:53, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

How do I post an image that is mine?

Hello there Stefan!

You left me this message: User_talk:Lidiabartlam#.7B.7BAutotranslate.7C1.3DFile:Planaltos_de_Cristal.JPG.7Cbase.3DImage_permission.2Fheading.7D.7D"Thanks for uploading File:Planaltos de Cristal.JPG. This media is missing permission information. A source is given, but there is no proof that the author or copyright holder agreed to license the file under the given license. Please provide a link to an appropriate webpage with license information, or send an email with copy of a written permission to OTRS (permissions-commons@wikimedia.org). This also applies if you are the author yourself.

Please see this page for more information on how to confirm permission, and Commons:Permission if you would like to understand why we ask for permission when uploading work that is not your own.

The file probably has been deleted. If you sent a permission, try to send it again after 14 days. Do not re-upload. When the OTRS-member processes your mail, the file can be undeleted. Additionally you can request undeletion here, providing a link to the File-page on Commons where it was uploaded (File:Planaltos de Cristal.JPG) and the above demanded information in your request."

And my question is what copyright do I assign to the image then? The picture was taken by my father Hélio Cunha (whom the page is about), he wished to have a painting showing his work on the page, so we uploaded one, but none of the copyright options made sense to me... the image is mine, I didn't get it from anywhere, copyright goes to me. So what option do I chose?

Thanks in advance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lidiabartlam (talk • contribs) 2014-09-16T20:01:41 (UTC)

The painter needs to follow the instructions in the talk page notice and contact OTRS. If the painter is dead, his heir should contact OTRS instead. --Stefan4 (talk) 22:55, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Stop reverting my deletion notices

For your benefit and to allay your ignorance, read my comment on this page! Commons:Deletion requests/Files on User:OgreBot/Notable uploads/2014 September 16— Ineuw talk 16:31, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Stop removing deletion tags from files nominated for deletion! If the tag is removed, users might overlook the fact that the files are up for deletion. --Stefan4 (talk) 16:35, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

The files are NOT up to be deleted. Anybody, especially bots, can tag anything to be deleted. Learn your copyright laws!!! Please back up your claim according to the copyright laws of the US and the relevant countries, Furthermore, we have thousands of documents on Wikisource claimed by Google. I bet you didn't read my notice, or your English is too poor to understand it, or the Google copyright notice. So please desist from interfering in Wikisource projects. — Ineuw talk 16:50, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

There are still revisions of the files with the unfree Google notices and those revisions are still to be deleted. You may NOT upload Google notices as Google holds the copyright to those notices! --Stefan4 (talk) 17:03, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

You have a point regarding the notices. I compiled a list of all DjVu files with the Google copyright notices and will help remove them in the coming days. You can see the list HERE. — Ineuw talk 08:05, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Google Front Notices

Do you plan on compiling a list of all files with such a front notice?

It would be "useful" to know which files might need to be 'fixed'. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 21:24, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure how to find all of them. I spotted some when looking at recent uploads, and those are the ones I nominated for deletion. The problem when people take a file from the Internet is that people do not only upload the public domain material, but also other material which is contained in the file, in this case a full page of text written by Google. This is somewhat similar to wmf:DMCA Cranach Digital Archive, where someone uploaded a file containing both a public domain image and non-free EXIF metadata, and then the Wikimedia Foundation took down the EXIF metadata when a takedown request arrived (while leaving the rest of the file). In that case, the claimant also wanted to take down other material, which the Wikimedia Foundation refused to do. --Stefan4 (talk) 21:35, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

As some indication of the size of the issue you are going to create by enforcing on this, I've started an attempt to identify Indez pages for wokrs at Wikisource that may have an issue. I will note I've had to flag quite a few Google sourced files alreday because of 'missing pages' in scans as well as scans that are of low quality.

Perhaps you could look through: Wikisource:Category:Index_-_File_to_fix and identify the files you object to so that this issue can be dealt with comprehensively, rather than there being a lack of communication between Wikisource and Commons (which is something of an issue at the moment.) ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 22:11, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Other than that it's a case of looking at Page 1 of every djvu file uploaded To commons... A tool for whcih is not beyond the bounds of technical possibility. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 22:11, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

A Commons search and a thhumbnail scan :- https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ASearch&profile=advanced&search=.djvu&fulltext=Search&ns6=1&profile=advanced , I counted at least 66 in 1000 on a not very detailed scan. Using a deletion process to resolve what is seemingly a very minor issue, isn;t just tearing out pages, it's akin to using a flamethrower :( 00:23, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

On Front Notices

Owing to your stance, perhaps you would like to suggest replacements for the following?

• Wikisource:Category:Works with scans containing front-sheets.
• Wikisource:Category:Works with watermarked pages

In respect of number in the former, considerable effort was made to get them transcribed, an effort that could have been effectviely wasted unless certain views you currently hold are modified. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 20:37, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

File:అక్షరశిల్పులు.pdf and other books

Dear Stefan4, a mail has already been sent to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org regarding permissions of the following books :

    భారత స్వాతంత్ర్యోద్యమం - ముస్లింలు
    భారత స్వాతంత్ర్యోద్యమం - ముస్లిం మహిళలు
    మైసూరు పులి టిపూ సుల్తాన్
    షహీద్-యే-ఆజం అష్ఫాఖుల్లా ఖాన్
    భారత స్వాతంత్ర్య సంగ్రామం - ముస్లిం యోధులు, మొదటి భాగం
    భారత స్వాతంత్ర్యోద్యమం - ముస్లిం ప్రజా పోరాటాలు
    చిరస్మరణీయులు, మొదటి భాగం
    1857 ముస్లింలు
    అక్షరశిల్పులు
    భారత స్వాతంత్ర్యోద్యమం - ఆంధ్రప్రదేశ్ ముస్లింలు

The mail was sent on 14 August with subject line as Re-releasing my books under CC-BY-SA 4.0 from the mail id of the author. The author also has all rights over each of the images used. Please let me know what tags to add to each of these books? --రహ్మానుద్దీన్ (talk) 13:33, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

If you send anything to OTRS, please mark the file with {{subst:OP}} so that other people see this. I have now marked 10 files with this based on what you wrote above, and removed the "no permission" tag. --Stefan4 (talk) 13:46, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Thank you! Do I need to add same for other files (cover images of 10 books above) too? --రహ్మానుద్దీన్ (talk) 15:26, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

If there are other files for which you also sent permission, such as cover images, then please add {{subst:OP}} to those too. --Stefan4 (talk) 15:31, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Manchester Victoria photo

As you can see in the source near the bottom of the page [5], the photo is licensed for reuse under Creative Commons license. I trust you will clear the mess. Regards Stevo1000 (talk) 14:50, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

As you can see in the source near the bottom of that page, the file is licensed under a different Creative Commons licence than the one you indicated. --Stefan4 (talk) 14:59, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

File:Flag of France (XII-XIII).jpg

My bad Steve. I am still a noob to Wikipedia and are not very familiar with the use of copyright tags. Now I have made a big correct copyright tag to the article and all well's end well. My sincere apologies for any inconveniences cause to you. Pktlaurence (talk) 08:48, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

La licence de ce fichier n'est pas correcte : File:Jean Paul Brusset Villefranche001.jpg

Bonjour, Ce fichier a été fourni par Jean Diégo Brusset, le fils de Jean-Paul Brusset. Le photographe n'est pas connu (probablement un ami du père). Cordialement --JMO (talk) 13:20, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

File:Puget Sound Regional Council logo.jpg

File:Puget Sound Regional Council logo.jpg has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry. If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue. Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

SounderBruce 00:12, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Copyright status: File:Chełm Nowe Miasto P-1088 1926 Zeszyt6 s18.jpg

Salut Stefan4, merci pour ton message, mais je suis déjà trop fatigué par les dégats causés sur wiki par ce système des "droits d'auteur" qui s'en fiche des matériaux publics - ces fichiers sont évidemment fait par moi-même et réprésentent des réproductions publiées en 1926 dans "Architectura i Budownictwo" du projet de la Ville Nouvelle à Chelm commandé, payé, acquis et réalisé par la ville de Chelm, donc il appartient sans aucun doute au domaine publique, mais seul leur sujet - c'est-à-dire ce projet n'est pas le mien, donc je ne peux pas attribuer, je pense, à ces fichiers des lisences CC proposées par commons - ce système d'attributions des monopoles par defaut n'est pas du tout comprehensible pour moi et je n'ai malheuresuement pas la moindre idée comment dans un tel cas il faut décrire des telles matériaux publiques de façon correcte - aujourd'hui encore j'ai posé des questions à ce propos dans le groupe wiki polonaise sur le facebook, mais ces gens là s'en fichent éperdument des cas pareils et moi je perdu déjà trop de temps dans des bagarres similaires sur wiki, alors si tu dois les gicler sans pouvoir aider de les décrire de façon correcte, tant pis - en ce qui concerne les sources: File:Chełm Nowe Miasto 1926.jpg j'ai scanné moi-même en 1995 au Musée de Trains à Varsovie et trois autres (File:Chełm Nowe Miasto P-1088 1926 Zeszyt6 s18.jpg; File:Chełm Nowe Miasto P-1088 1926 Zeszyt6 s19a.jpg; File:Chełm Nowe Miasto P-1088 1926 Zeszyt6 s19b.jpg) j'ai réproduit de la publication du 1926 mise récemment sur l'internet par la Bibliothèque de l'Ecole Polytechnique de Silesie (http://delibra.bg.polsl.pl/dlibra/publication/17794?tab=1) avec la notification expresse "disponible sans restrictions" (pl: zasób dostępny bez ograniczeń), mais à part cette publication la plus ancienne, ils ètaient déjà publiés à plusieures reprises (entre autres, par moi-même au journal Gazeta Wyborcza en 16.07.1997, par KUL en 2007, par PAN en 2008); alors je te saurai gré pour ton aide éventuelle, avec meilleures salutations de Pologne, --wkaczura (talk) 01:37, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

je viens de rémarquer que des informations publiées ici: Commons:Copyright_rules_by_territory#Poland découlent clairement, que sur wikimedia commons à ces photographies formellemnt doivent s'appliquer ces deux modèles:

1) avant tout {{Anonymous-EU}} car l'auteur ou les auteurs de ces photos sont inconnus, et ces photos ont été publiées en 1926 dans "Architektura i Budownictwo no 6 p. 18-19" sans indications de leurs auteurs - donc les 70 ans ont passés dès qu'elles étaient rendues publiques et leurs auteurs tout ce temps restaient inconnus;

2) indépendament du modèle {{Anonymous-EU}} en plus ausssi le modèle {{PD-Polish}} est apliquable car:

"the following conditions:

1. Image is a photograph
2. Photograph was published or distributed in Poland before May 23, 1994
3. Photographer is Polish or the photograph was first published in Poland"

de façon claire et évidente découlent de la publication mentionnée ci-dessus "Architektura i Budownictwo no 6 p. 18-19" mise dernierement à disposition publique par la Bibliothèque Principale de l'Ecole Polytechnique de la Silesie ici avec la notification, en plus, "ressource disponible sans restrictions";

- est-ce que quelqu'un peut aider corriger les déscriptions de ces photos de façon juste selon les règles de wikimedia commons, afin d'éviter l'objection du vandalisme ? anyone could help ? - --wkaczura (talk) 06:49, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Le modèle {{PD-Polish}} est seulement applicable pour des photographies, mais File:Chełm Nowe Miasto P-1088 1926 Zeszyt6 s18.jpg est une carte. Voir aussi Commons:Œuvre dérivée.

Selon Commons:Deletion requests/File:Chełm Nowe Miasto 1926.jpg, la carte est dessinée par Adam Kuncewicz. Si Adam Kuncewicz est le dessinateur, il faut vérifier que Kuncewicz est mort depuis au moins 70 ans. Selon Commons:Deletion requests/File:Chełm Nowe Miasto 1926.jpg, Kuncewicz est mort en 1945. Si Kuncewicz est le seul dessinateur, et si il est mort en 1945, tu ne peux pas importer l'image sur Commons avant de 2016.

Si Adam Kuncewicz n'est pas le dessinateur, et si le dessinateur est anonyme, tu pourras utiliser le modèle {{Anonymous-EU}}. --Stefan4 (talk) 13:56, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

OK Stefan4, merci pour ton opinion - en réponse j'ajoute qu'il n'y a aucune preuve que Kuncewicz (ou Paprocki) soient les auteurs de ce dessin (ni l'un de deux), il n'y a pas des preuves non plus qu'ils étaient à l'époque les deteneurs des quelconques "droits d'auteurs" dans leur sens d'aujourd'hui,

les sources disponibles, que je connais assez bien depuis 1995-98, quand j'ai découvert et travaillé sur ce thème dans mon bureau à Chelm, mentionnent uniquement que Kuncewicz et Paprocki ont conçu l'idée (la conception) pour l'aménagement de la Ville Nouvelle à Chelm, au sein de la Coopérative des Employés de l'Institut de l'Architecture Polonaise de l'Ecole Polytechnique de Varsovie (Spółdzielnia Architektoniczna Pracowników Zakładu Architektury Polskiej Politechniki Warszawskiej), laquelle a reçu une telle commande du pouvoir publique (on ne sait pas du quel - soit de la ville de Chelm, soit de l'état polonais ou de deux, ni exactement quand - soit en 1926, soit déjà en 1925 quand les démarches ont était entrepris par la ville de Chelm; on ne connais pas non plus ni le sujet exact, ni l'étendu du contrat conclu et des sources disponibles ne mentionnent même pas si Kuncewicz et Paprocki ont participé à des phases suivantes de ce projet (1926-1939) développées par d'autres personnes et par la direction des travaux à Chelm), il est donc possible, qu'ils n'ont fait rien d'autre à part cette idée au départ, qui représente un pour mille du projet entier, mais on sait pas;

manque des preuves encyclopediques incontestables, tout c'est qu'on peut déviner aujourd'hui avec une certitude relativement suffisante - c'est premièrement, que la commande était passé par le pouvoir publique non pas aux architectes Kuncewicz et Paprocki, mais à l'institution publique (école nationale) où Kuncewicz et Paprocki étaient employés - et deuxièmement, que des esquisses représentant l'idée de Kuncewicz et Paprocki pour l'aménagement de la Ville Nouvelle à Chelm ont était présentés déjà en juin 1926 sur l'exposition à Varsovie - preuve à l'appui - justement ce numéro 6 de "l'Architektura i Budownictwo" de 1926, qui confirme ces deux aspects;

mais deux faits importants on peut constater avec certitude - que la commande, le contrat et la conception étaient fait avant que la notion quelconque des "droits d'auteurs" existait en Pologne, car la prèmière loi sur les "droits d'auteurs" la Pologne avait introduit juste le 14 juin 1926, sans parler qu'en architecture il n'y avait aucun besoin ni pratique de la prise en consideration des "droits d'auteurs" dans les contrats entre les architectes et les maîtres d'ouvrage encore pendant plusieurs décenies suivantes - donc pretendre aujourd'hui ou exiger de prouver quoi que ce soit concernant les "droits d'auteurs" qui n'existaient pas et ne pouvaient pas être prise en consideration par personne - c'est déjà un remarquable record mondial de la stupidité ou de la mauvaise foi;

et avec toute certitude on peut constater surtout, qu'il y a eu lieu le transfer des "droits d'auteurs" sur le public représenté par les pouvoirs publique de l'époque, ce qui prouve incontestablement la réalisation de ce projet publique, car sans le transfer des "droits d'auteurs" sa realisation entre 1928 et 1939 n'aurait pas été possible - il n'est donc pas possible que les droits déjà transférés et consommés restent toujours près de l'auteur - tout le reste c'est de la pure spéculation, car dans l'architecture jusqu'aujourd'hui aussi toute documentation qui serve à conçevoir, réaliser et promouvoir le projet devient la propriété du maître d'ouvrage en tant que la documentation de l'ouvrage et le maître d'ouvrage acquiert tout droit d'en faire usage - car c'est son droit sacré et naturel d'en disposer à son gré de ce qu'il achète, pour autant que cela serve à la realisation des buts des contrats conclus - c'est le but du contrat qui en tranche toujours et non pas l'artifice des "droits d'auteurs";

pour conclure, d'une part, personne ne peut detenir les droits déjà transférés (ce serait une contradiction logique) et la loi ne peut pas retroact, car cela conduit à l'anarchie et l'illégalité, d'autre part, comme ce projet était publique, il n'est pas question qu'une personne privée puise detenir valablement quelconques droits d'en faire usage (y compris sa documentation, publication, promotion, etc.) à part le public - donc c'est le domaine public, car aucune autre solution n'entre plus en considération - malheuresuement toute cette perte incroyable de temps de ma part est pour rien, car à cette occasion j'ai découvert que wikimedia commons seulement en théorie permet la publication des matériaux qui appartient du domain public par les transfers analogiques des "droits" de leurs "auteurs", mais pose des conditions impossibles à remplir dans la majorité des cas, ce qui explique pourquoi sur commons il n'y a que très peu matériaux similaires - et ceux rares qui s'y trouvent, sont décrites de fause façon, ou par abus des modèles disponibles dont les conditions à tout évidence ne sont pas remplises dans la plus part des cas (p.ex. comme anonyme pour cacher l'auteur, ou par plagiat avec des modifications minimes afin de publier un tel travail comme le sien, etc.) - moi, durant 7 ans je n'en étais pas conscient du tout, mais je laisse ça déjà sans commentaires, je crois que chaqu'un capable de réflechir peut en tirer ses conclusions à son propore usage et pour ma part je n'abandonne ni les armes, ni la lutte pour le domain public, sauf qu'il faut que je change des moyens; en tout cas merci pour ton aide et meilleures salutations, --wkaczura (talk) 19:08, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

"Clean & Clear" add

Please check File:Clean & Clear TV ad 1956.ogv, I've made reference to the original file, where the uploader specified that the file is under Creative Commons license: Public Domain Mark 1.0 licence. I've also made changes to the page by placing "more than 50 years old" licence. This is all I have for this file, cannot specify any further. Is it enough to have file available with full (or limited rights)? I think it makes great contribution to Clean & Clear article, would be really nice to keep it. --TigerInWoods (talk) 14:03, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Can I remove wrong licence template that you placed? Do you think Creative Commons Attribution 1.0 Generic license is the correct one for this type of file? --TigerInWoods (talk) 15:19, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

• You have specified that the image has been licensed under "Creative Commons Attribution 1.0 Generic". However, there is no evidence that the file has been licensed under any licence, so the {{wrong license}} tag looks correct to me.

You have added a copyright tag which states that the author has been dead for at least 50 years. That may be the case (it is not specified who the author is and no death year has been specified so the claim can't be verified), but that tag doesn't say anything about the copyright status in the United States as the United States uses other copyright terms for works. Therefore, the {{wrong license}} tag looks correct with regard to that copyright tag too.

You have stated that the film was created by someone called by someone called "Emperor". However, this seems to be the person who uploaded the file to archive.org and is presumably not the author of the film.

On the page https://archive.org/details/1956CommercialForCleanClear it says that the film is in the public domain, but it does not say why the uploader thinks that the file is in the public domain. You therefore needs to verify whether it is in the public domain and, if it is in the public domain, identify the correct reason for this. For example, is this a published film? United States copyright rules mostly depend on when and whether something has been published. I'm not sure what U.S. law says, but Swedish law seems to say that broadcasting a film on television or showing it to people at a cinema normally doesn't constitute publication. This page suggests that broadcasting a film on television is a "public performance" of the work and that a "public performance" isn't strictly publication. Before 1978, the rules were more complex (see also COM:PACUSA). --Stefan4 (talk) 14:11, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification. You are absolutely right. I have replaced the video at Clean & Clear page with external media template. Do you think the video at Commons should be deleted? I have no further information on this file. It look quite authentic (1956 style) though :) --TigerInWoods (talk) 16:42, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

As I wrote, the main obstacle for determining the copyright status is determining whether the video has been published. I have asked for clarification at COM:VPC#Publication of films as I'm not sure myself. --Stefan4 (talk) 13:55, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Notification about possible deletion

Some contents have been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether they should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at their entry. If you created these pages, please note that the fact that they have been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with them. Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

--Jayarathina (talk) 07:25, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Colorado Reps

Stefan: User:Sethant uploaded a total of 78 files of the form File:Colorado-Rep-XXX.jpg. (including one that begins "File:Image-Colorado", one where it is spelled "Colorad", and four where the extension is "JPG")

• 22 of them are in the OTRS ticket I listed at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Colorado-Rep-Mark-Ferrandino.jpg. The 22 are the only ones that came up on my search for the ticket number.
• 5 of them have separate OTRS tickets, all of which appear to be valid.
• 50 at Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Sethant
• 1 at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Colorado-Rep-Mark-Ferrandino.jpg

That's all 78. You said there were 31 files that had the OTRS ticket on them. What are the others? .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:24, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

I've replied at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Colorado-Rep-Mark-Ferrandino.jpg. I note that it says that some, such as File:Colorad-Rep-Joel-Judd.jpg, are taken by an unknown photographer but that the subject of the photograph is the copyright holder. Is there some kind of explanation as to why the subject of the photograph would be the copyright holder? Sounds like an unusual situation. --Stefan4 (talk) 22:54, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

I wouldn't be surprised if a politician bought the copyright to a portrait for use in campaign advertising and so forth. I also wouldn't be surprised if people are simply being careless -- many people, including a lot of Commons users, think that if you go to a portrait studio and pay for a portrait, you own the copyright. Olan Mills, the largest portrait photographer in the USA (I think), explicitly tells its customers that that is not the case. When someone declares to OTRS that they own the copyright, we don't look too hard at it, although I expect that some of those declarations are incorrect. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:15, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

If you go to a photographer in Sweden and ask the photographer to create a portrait photograph for you, the rules are complex:

• If you went to the photographer before 1 July 1994, then you own the copyright to the photograph.
• If you went to the photographer on 1 July 1994 or later, then the photographer owns the copyright to the photograph. However, you need to approve any use of the photograph as the photographer's permission otherwise is invalid. This seems to imply some kind of shared copyright where both people have to approve the use of the photograph.

If the photograph is not a portrait photograph, or if it was first published anonymously, then the rules are slightly different (but it is still important to know whether the photograph was taken before 1 July 1994 or not). From what I have understood, United States law generally states that you should replace 1 July 1994 above with 1 January 1978, but for a different reason (w:Pushman v. New York Graphic Society).

Because of the complexities in the rules for determining the copyright (and the fact that many people don't know those rules), I think that we should be very careful with accepting claims of ownership of copyright, in particular when the claimant isn't the photographer. --Stefan4 (talk) 14:55, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Demande de suppression de plusieurs photos de pièces de monnaie belges

Bonjour Stefan4,

Vous avez demandé la suppression de plusieurs photos de pièces de monnaie belges. J'avoue que ces histoires m'agacent fortement. J'avais fait une demande à la Monnaie royale de Belgique pour obtenir des photos de qualité de toutes les pièces belges et leur autorisation, pour pouvoir illustrer des articles sur les pièces de monnaie dans Wikipédia en français et donc placer les photos des pièces sur Wikimedia Commons afin d'en faire profiter également les autres projets Wikimedia. Il n'est pas facile d'obtenir une réponse de la Monnaie royale mais, suite à une lettre adressée au Commissaire des Monnaies (donc le plus haut placé de la Monnaie Royale), j'avais finalement obtenu toutes les photos (ou presque), et obtenu une autorisation écrite mais ne précisant pas la licence. J'avais introduit une partie des pièces sur Commons en essayant d'être plus complet possible, en indiquant même des légendes en français, néerlandais, anglais et allemande. Vous, personnellement, avez proposé la suppression car il n'y avait pas la prévue que la Monnaie royale autorisait la diffusion sous cette licence. J'ai donc redemandé et obtenu après plusieurs semaines, que la Monnaie royale accepte le texte standard que je leur ai envoyé et qui vient de Wikimedia Commons. J'ai donc remis d'autres photos en reproduisant l'autorisation et cette fois c'est un certain Bloody-libu qui a estimé que ce n'était pas suffisant et demandant que j'envoie le mail original qui m'autorisait à placer ces photos sur Wikimedia Commons. Ce que j'ai fait. Un certain Johan Bos a pris le relai me disant qu'il n'était pas sûr la personne qui m'a donné l'autorisation (càd le responsable numismatique de la Monnaie Royale) pouvait me donner l'autorisation. Il devait le contacter. Je n'ai jamais eu de nouvelle. À présent, c'est vous qui proposez la suppression des fichiers qui avaient échappé à la vigilance des autres. Alors, d'abord, pourquoi ? J'ai l'autorisation. C'est la Monnaie royale qui a les droits sur les pièces de monnaie belge et c'est un de ses représentants qui a donné son autorisation en acceptant le texte standard de Wikimédia et j'ai reproduit ce texte sur chaque photo. Où est à présent le problème ?

Je voulais aussi expliquer mon agacement. Je comprends bien qu'il faut respecter le droit d'auteur. Si vous reproduisez une photo sans l'autorisation du photographe, il est en droit de réclamer et même d'intenter un procès. Une pièce de monnaie, c'est un objet usuel. Il est bien sûr couvert par le droit d'auteur mais les instituts d'émission, propriétaires de droits, n'ont pas vraiment intérêt à pourchasser tous ceux qui diffuseraient l'image des pièces de monnaie car elles sont reproduites partout (horodateur, distributeur, dépliant des banques, site de vente de pièces, etc., etc.) et en plus, ça leur fait de la "publicité" car leur produit, c'est un objet métallique, pas une photo (contrairement aux photographes). Si en plus, l'institut monétaire donne clairement son autorisation, je ne vois pas pourquoi il faut se montrer plus catholique que le pape.

D'autre part, j'ai pris plusieurs heures pour introduire ces pièces, pour aller chercher les CD avec les photos, pour répondre à vous, à Bloody-libu, à Johan Bos... Pour quoi ? Juste parce que je voulais faire avancer le projet Wikimedia Commons et le faire dans les règles. J'aurais pu indiquer comme tant d'autres que c'était un travail personnel alors qu'il n'ont aucune autorisation de la Monnaie royale (voir : File:Pieces belge 20 F.png , File:Pieces belge 5f.png , File:5-Cent-Belgium-1856-Front.jpg , File:Belgie 1 frank 1922.JPG et tant d'autres), j'aurais pu juste les placer dans Wikipedia en français qui a compris que les pièces de monnaie était un peu à part et autorise la reproduction des photos de monnaies dans des cas précis mais non, j'ai cherché à faire profiter plus de monde et être très honnête. En suis-je récompensé ? Pas vraiment ! Ai-je encore envie de me battre pour enrichir Wikimedia Commons de photos de pièces de monnaie pour lesquelles j'ai obtenu les droits ? Pas vraiment ! Ce n'est pas dommage pour moi mais pour l'ensemble des projets Wikimedia et l'ensemble des personnes qui s'intéressent à la numismatique dans la monde.

Voilà, j'ai fini mon plaidoyer. Merci de m'avoir lu.

--Delsaut (talk) 12:43, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

• Bonsoir,

Comment puis-je vérifier que le message de "Didier Vanoverbeek" a été écrit par Didier Vanoverbeek ? Il faut qu'il envoie le message à OTRS.

J'ai déjà envoyé le message original. Je ne vais pas encore une fois contacter ce monsieur. Il représente la Monnaie royale et m'a déjà dit 3 fois que la Monnaie royale était d'accord. La Monnaie royale est la seule institution qui puisse réagir négativement à la mise à disposition de ces photos. J'ai l'assurance orale, puis écrite qu'elle a bien donné cet accord. Je lui fais confiance et je le crois et je ne veux pas l'importuner encore une fois. Il a d'autres choses à faire. D'autant que vu les arguments toujours différents (méfiance de la provenance du mail comme si j'avais fait un faux, suspicion que M. Vanoverbeeck ne puisse pas donner l'accord, doute sur le droit d'auteur de pièces avec Tintin, Spirou etc.), je ne peux pas être assuré que ce nouveau mail permettra d'ôter tout doute et que quelqu'un ne va pas trouver encore autre chose pour faire supprimer ces photos. Si vous êtes méfiant, contactez-le vous-même (comme l'avait fait Johan Bos). Vous pouvez également consulter la jurisprudence pour vérifier le nombre de procès déclenchés par la Monnaie royale suite à la mise à disposition de la photo d'une de leurs pièces. Si vous ne souhaitez pas faire ces démarches, vous passerez à côté de l'opportunité pour Wikimedia Commons d'intégrer une grande quantité de photos de pièces de monnaie belges. En ce qui me concerne, je ne veux plus perdre mon temps à enrichir Wikimedia Commons dans de telles conditions. Désolé ! --Delsaut (talk) 16:30, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

File:Belgian coin of 20 euro Hergé - obverse.jpg dit "© HERGE/ML". Pourquoi pensez-vous que la Monnaie royale de Belgique soit le propriétaire du droit d'auteur ? --Stefan4 (talk) 20:26, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Je ne suis pas spécialiste en droit d'auteur. Ce cas-ci peut être discutable mais où déjà voyez-vous la mention "© HERGE/ML" sur File:Belgian coin of 10 euro (EU enlargement) - reverse.TIF (vous avez appliqué la même explication partout) ? D'autre part, vous n'êtes pas sans savoir que "une personne ne pourra pas se prévaloir de la qualité de coauteur de l’œuvre si:[...] elle a créé une œuvre qui est intégrée à une autre œuvre (par exemple, une photographie intégrée dans une base de données), mais il n'y a pas eu concertation pour créer une œuvre commune." (source : Belspo). J'ignore évidemment si Moulinsart a participé à la création de l'œuvre (donc la pièce) mais Hergé n'y a clairement pas participé. Encore une fois, si la Monnaie royale a donné son autorisation, c'est qu'elle pouvait le faire. Je ne peux pas douter qu'elle ne connaisse pas le droit d'auteur sur ses propres pièces mais je ne suis pas juriste. J'imagine qu'un juriste (vous peut-être) peut, au sein de Wikimedia Commons, vérifier exactement quelle(s) autorisation(s) doivent être demandées pour une œuvre composée d'une autre œuvre, dans la législation et la jurisprudence, sachant qu'ici l'œuvre intégrée n'est pas purement intégrée mais "recopiée" puisqu'Hergé n'est pas graveur et qu'il était déjà mort au moment de l'émission de la pièce. Le droit peut très bien accorder la création au graveur et non au dessinateur original mais je vous laisse vérifier cela. --Delsaut (talk) 16:30, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Osama bin Laden.PNG

Hi, Stefan, you already have been warned not to create unnecessary deletion requests. Please don't. This is a warning. Regards, Yann (talk) 09:35, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

@Yann: The re-nomination doesn't appear to be frivolous; I, like Stefan4, don't understand how "No real doubt that it was first published in Afghanistan" directly leads to "Keep". It appears that people in the first deletion discussion are making indirect assumptions about some copyright rules without saying what they are, let alone citing the rules that back it up. I'm inclined to re-nominate this file myself. Someone needs to walk us through how a photograph, probably shot after 1989 and not shot by a U.S. government employee, can end up public domain without the creator's/photographer's permission. Has someone shown that the photographic work is not "created using an original mode" (Article 6 of the Afghanistan's Copy Right Law Copy Right Law)? Is someone asserting that photographs taken in Afghanistan before 2008 are permanently in the public domain, despite Article 34 of Afghanistan's Copy Right Law saying "Works provided in Article 6 of this Law that have been produced before the enforcement of this law, shall be protected by the provisions of this law"? Or is someone asserting that Commons no longer pays attention to countries without U.S. treaties, despite long-standing practice on Wikipedia and Commons, and the likelihood that the photographer could be citizen of some other country that does have a treaty protecting them regardless of publication in Afghanistan? None of these were really discussed, let alone proven past COM:PRP. --Closeapple (talk) 15:07, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

You guys like controversial DRs, don't you? :( This is a picture taken in Afghanistan, and published in Afghanistan by the US government. If it was published before by someone else, it was most probably also published in Afghanistan. There is no reason to doubt that. This looks clear and simple. Regards, Yann (talk) 17:10, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

@Yann: But what does "Afghanistan" have to do with "Keep"? Are you saying that anything first published in Afghanistan is uncopyrighted? (Because Afghan law says otherwise.) --Closeapple (talk) 17:52, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

You didn't read the DR, did you? Jim said there: if the image were taken in Afghanistan in the 1990s and first published there, that it would be PD. Regards, Yann (talk) 17:56, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

@Yann: Not only did I read it, but then I already addressed it in the very first reply:

Is someone asserting that photographs taken in Afghanistan before 2008 are permanently in the public domain, despite Article 34 of Afghanistan's Copy Right Law saying "Works provided in Article 6 of this Law that have been produced before the enforcement of this law, shall be protected by the provisions of this law"?

My same reply had 2 other ways that there might be a misunderstanding about public domain, too. So even though I've read, contemplated, and guessed 3 different reasons for what I read, all of that is skipped and I'm the (second) one accused of not reading instead. Why is there this attitude with this particular deletion? Is there some other background controversy about this file on some other page that I'm supposed to know about but "didn't read" too? --Closeapple (talk) 20:35, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

...particularly since the uploader is the same one for Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by StanTheMan87, and seems to have even more nice, good-faith statements to say about Stefan4's language abilities. (And no, I don't know Stefan4 particularly well; I just noticed the deletion warnings and wondered why the replies were worded so strongly.) --Closeapple (talk) 22:22, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Please delete File Not Free

File is not free and can be checked via Google Search..Please delete--ابوهايدي (talk) 03:46, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

File:الحوثي.jpg

File Not Free

PUFs at Wikipedia

Hi Stefan

Not sure whether you are more active here or at En Wiki, so leaving this here. I see you have previously had run-ins with User:StanTheMan87 at En Wiki re dubious non-free use rationales. That user name is now blocked but he's back and being as obnoxious as ever as User:StanMan87. Not really sure how to proceed as I do not have the time to get into the slanging match that will inevitably ensue if I file a sockpuppet report. Your thoughts?--ukexpat (talk) 13:56, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

South Korea

Fair enough, I agree that if the cite is wrong, you should revert my change. But, if you know the cite is wrong, then you also need to fix it -- otherwise other people are going to waste time making the same mistake I did. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:21, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Right. There are also various other rules in {{PD-South Korea}} which seem to indicate that works remain in the public domain if the copyright expired before the law was changed in 1987 and 2013. The rules seem to be a bit complex... --Stefan4 (talk) 14:34, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

I don't understand the 1976 date in {{PD-South Korea}}. The rule before 1987 was thirty years, so any work after 1957 would still be under copyright in 1987 and again in 2013, even if the creator died in the same year. I don't read Korean, so I can't help with this, but the fact that the template and the summary don't match is creating problems -- I just closed a DR where one party quoted the template and the other, the summary. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 17:48, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

The Japanese copyright act of 1899 (s:ja:著作権法 (明治三十二年法律第三十九号), article 23) originally gave a 10-year term for photographs. South Korea was a Japanese colony from 1910 to 1945 (see w:Korea under Japanese rule) and might have used the same or a similar copyright law during the Japanese rule. Assuming that the 10-year term was still in use until the law was changed in 1987, this gives a 1976 cut-off date. Maybe this is what happened, and this would then explain the text in the template. There is some discussion about the photograph term on the template talk page. --Stefan4 (talk) 18:03, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

File:Gaohuaide 1797.jpg

File:Gaohuaide 1797.jpg has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry. If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue. Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

Timmyshin (talk) 22:04, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Nachricht

https://de.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Benutzerin_Diskussion:Itti&diff=prev&oldid=135716892

Bitte den Inhalt umgehend löschen lassen! Bitte die Wikipedia-Admins um Hilfe. Ich kann sowas nicht, da meine IP-Adressen-Gruppe gesperrt ist.

--84.151.148.166 17:19, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

I am not an administrator at German Wikipedia, so I can't delete someone's profane statement about User:Itti. However, I see that Itti is an administrator on German Wikipedia, so she should be able to delete that revision herself if necessary. --Stefan4 (talk) 17:31, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Japanese toys

Hi - I read your comment on copyright of Japanese toys in the US here: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Village_pump/Copyright/Archive/2013/05

And was wondering if your insight is relevant for this discussion? https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/Files_in_Category:Aibo

File:May-Britt og Edvard Moser.jpeg

If you are a reviewer, can you pass or file a DR on this image? Maybe the Nobel committee created this image but I don't know. Best Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 05:51, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

The medal was made by Erik Lindberg (1873-1966). It should be obvious that NTNU isn't the copyright holder to that medal. I have no idea where the photograph comes from. --Stefan4 (talk) 15:06, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

• Thanks for the reply. Best Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 01:53, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for reverting [6]

That was just weird.

GRuban (talk) 21:55, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Based on the text added to the page and the IP's block summary, it seems to be Wikinger who vandalised the page. See w:WP:WIKINGER for further information. --Stefan4 (talk) 22:03, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

File:Siretel.jpg

File:Siretel.jpg has been marked as a possible copyright violation. Wikimedia Commons only accepts free content—that is, images and other media files that can be used by anyone, for any purpose. Traditional copyright law does not grant these freedoms, and unless noted otherwise, everything you find on the web is copyrighted and not permitted here. For details on what is acceptable, please read Commons:Licensing. You may find Commons:Copyright rules useful. You can ask questions about Commons policies in Commons:Help desk. The file you added has been deleted. If you believe that the deletion was not in accordance with policy, you may request undeletion. Wikimedia Commons takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

 

1989 16:55, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

	The Hedgehog Prize
	In Estonian mythology, hedgehog is considered one of the most clever animals. So this prize is for advice, which I could not think up myself. Taivo (talk) 19:38, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Hitchcock

Hi, Stefan! I'm asking you about one favour. Here are some files that is being used in russian, ukrainian and partly in french versions of "Alfred Hitchcock's cameo list" (begining from the fifth file in this upload-list). I was searching for some information about copyright status of those movies, but I didn't find anything worthy: no information about ending of copy-right term or renewal of it or some extra-conditions. I'm just beginig to work with files, so could you check it out and help me? Thank you--TnoXX (talk) 11:19, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

Cleanup in Nordic files

Hi Stefan!

I've been cleaning up in the Nordic files and today there are:

• da:Special:ListFiles - 0 files
• sv:Special:ListFiles - 0 files
• kl:Special:ListFiles - 1 file
• nn:Special:ListFiles - 19 files
• no:Special:ListFiles - 53 files
• fo:Special:ListFiles - 341 files
• is:Special:ListFiles - 3.264 files (allow fair use)
• fi:Special:ListFiles - 39.071 files (allow fair use)

I was wondering if any Wikipedia could just choose to allow fair use or if they need for the local copyright law to allow fair use. Do you have any idea of that? --MGA73 (talk) 13:32, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Enligt wmf:Resolution:Licensing policy måste man följa "the law of countries where the project content is predominantly accessed (if any)". Det betyder exempelvis att finskspråkiga Wikipedia endast kan tillåta filer som är tillåtna enligt finsk lagstiftning. --Stefan4 (talk) 17:56, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Tak for hjælpen. Så må vi håbe, at nogen med forstand på den finske lovgivning har tjekket om deres EDP overholder dette. Og tak for hjælpen på no.wikipedia. --MGA73 (talk) 21:34, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Re: File:AmeenRihani1916.jpg

 Done. I Added all the Info when i first uploaded the image from en. wiki. Not sure why they were removed later. Best--باسم (talk) 11:15, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

The information you added is not a source as there is no source on English Wikipedia in the first place. Please add a valid source so that the copyright tag can be verified. Also do not forget to add w:Template:Now Commons to Wikipedia after copying a file from Wikipedia to Commons. --Stefan4 (talk) 13:09, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

The image itself has no mention of its source on en. wiki. But in all cases shouldn't it be free? This man died in 1940, and he was living in the United states. Its been 75 years since his death, and clearly this image was taken earlier.--باسم (talk) 10:00, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

The file on English Wikipedia has been marked as having no source. Without a source, it is not possible to know whether the photograph shows the person it is claimed to show, whether the photograph has been published before or whether the photograph indeed is from the claimed age. These things affect the copyright status of the image. --Stefan4 (talk) 20:33, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Edgar Allan Poe

Stefan4, I have done as you requested on my talk page. It is always easy to follow an image to the book (source) itself and find the same image in it the book. Kind regards & Happy New Year, William Maury Morris II (talk) 11:50, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

BUON ANNO / Happy New Year

Happy new yeaaar, a 2015 of good things, wishes happy holidays --Pava (talk) 15:34, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Filer på ms-wiki

Hej

Har du stadig det bot-script du brugte på wikivoyage? Jeg tænker på det, der sorterede filerne efter uploader?

Jeg tænkte på at sortere alle filer i ms:Kategori:All_free_media i kategorier. Evt. kun ms:Kategori:Imej domain awam (obsolete) til at starte med.

De har haft 3 år til at rydde op og der er ikke sket så meget bortset fra på filer uden lisens. Så jeg tænker på at masse slette filer uden en ordentlig kilde.

Godt nytår! --MGA73 (talk) 16:16, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Jag vet inte vad ms: har för regler för robotar eller hur man ansöker om tillstånd att använda sådana, men här har du en lista på alla filer, sorterade på användarnamn. --Stefan4 (talk) 19:58, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Tak for det. Jeg har sorteret top uploaderne til at begynde med. Der er ikke så mange aktive administratorer mv. på ms-wiki så jeg tror ikke du vil kunne få bot flag og omvendt vil du formentlig heller ikke blive blokeret. Jeg vil i alt fald ikke blokere dig for det :-D --MGA73 (talk) 21:59, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Kan du hjælpe med endnu et udtræk på ms-wikipedia? Alle filer i ms:Kategori:Semua media bukan bebas (All non-free media) der IKKE er brugt i mindst en artikel. Dvs. filer, der slet ikke er i brug eller kun i brug på fx brugersider. Sådanne filer opfylder jo ikke kriterierne for fair use og bør slettes. --MGA73 (talk) 17:28, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

På engelskspråkiga Wikipedia säger w:WP:NFCC#7 att alla ofria filer måste användas i minst en artikel. Jag vet inte om detta krav finns på alla projekt eller vad reglerna på mswiki säger. Du kan testa att använda en modifikation av detta:

USE mswiki_p;
SELECT p.page_title FROM page p
INNER JOIN categorylinks c1 ON p.page_id = c1.cl_from
LEFT JOIN imagelinks i ON p.page_title = i.il_to AND i.il_from_namespace = 0
WHERE c1.cl_to = "Semua_media_bukan_bebas"
AND i.il_from IS NULL
AND p.page_namespace = 6

Du kanske även har användning av detta som finner filer som används i strid med engelskspråkiga Wikipedias w:WP:NFCC#9 eller detta som finner filer som användare glömt att märka med "NowCommons". Du behöver ändra enwiki_p till mswiki_p och du behöver även ändra namnen på alla kategorier. --Stefan4 (talk) 22:06, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Template:PD-NorwayGov

Hi. Just to be sure. Does templates like this need an US copyright tag? --MGA73 (talk) 19:15, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Det är oklart, men Commons verkar anta att det inte behövs någon amerikansk upphovsättsmall. --Stefan4 (talk) 20:30, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Tak. Det er jo næsten en slags PD-self så vi kan jo sagtens finde en undskyldning for ikke at gøre mere... Det ville være lettere hvis US bare accepterede at når det er PD i hjemlandet, så er det også PD i US. --MGA73 (talk) 21:59, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Appending upload information

Hi. When transferring images with OgreBot, images which already have an upload history do not really need the information appended to the page again. Is there a reason you have been choosing this option? Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 05:36, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

I think that it is better to have too many original upload logs than too few. There could be a problem to have no original upload log, but having two of them shouldn't cause any problems. I usually try to mark that checkbox so that I won't forget about it in cases where there is no upload log at all available, but I guess it results in too many upload logs in other cases. Sorry. There are over 3,000 files on English Wikipedia which people have forgot to tag with "NowCommons", and it takes a lot of time to go through all of them and add missing/corrected information. --Stefan4 (talk) 22:06, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

This DR

Whatever you think of the situation, please vote to keep or delete this image in the DR. Best Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 22:57, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

• Replied there. --Stefan4 (talk) 23:06, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
• Thank You. If the image is kept because it does pass COM:TOO, at least I learned something here. Packaging is a problem with some companies. Best Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 00:41, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

File "El Grande"

Hi Stefan4, I received your message about your deletion of my file "El Grande.jpg". I did that image for my own, so I'm interested to know if the reason of that could be that is an edited game. Thanks, --Vàngelis Villar (talk) 22:34, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

If I remember correctly, File:El Grande.jpg was a photograph of a board game (w:El Grande). You need to obtain permission from the one who created the drawings for that board game. --Stefan4 (talk) 16:42, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks a lot, Stefan4 for the information. --Vàngelis Villar (talk) 23:43, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

rationale for use of File:Ania_half_sheet.png

Main gallery: w:File:Ania_half_sheet.png.

Hi Stefan -

  I'm in the process of completing the page where this image will be used.  Hopefully I'll have it together within a week, but if not, it will definitely be ready within the next couple of weeks.  Please don't delete it.  I need this image.

Thanks, DHilbert — Preceding unsigned comment added by DHilbert (talk • contribs) 2015-01-19T21:25:39 (UTC)

w:WP:NFCC#7 does not permit any non-free files which are not in use in any articles (and a user sandbox is not an article), and furthermore w:WP:NFCC#9 does not permit any non-free files in user sandboxes. Please do not upload images like this until the article has been moved to the article namespace. --Stefan4 (talk) 23:05, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

File:Fuglaframi1-1png.PNG

Hej læste forkert og overførte denne til Commons. Kan du komme i tanke om nogen gyldig grund til at filen er PD? --MGA73 (talk) 19:15, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Vad betyder "Blaðstýrari: Sverre Patursson"? Betyder det att Sverre Patursson skrivit texten eller betyder det att han var chefredaktör eller ansvarig utgivare? Om Sverre Patursson enbart var chefredaktör eller ansvarig utgivare, kan man eventuellt använda {{Anonymous-EU}}. I annat fall måste nog filen raderas. --Stefan4 (talk) 22:22, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Tak for tippet. Ifølge http://sprotin.fo/dictionaries_dictionary.php?Language=en& så betyder blaðstjóri redaktør (editor). Så han har ikke nødvendigvis skrevet teksten selv. --MGA73 (talk) 07:27, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

File:Figure1 left.gif

Hi StefanT, appearently you noticed something that I am missing. I moved the image here manually from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Figure1_left.gif (nowadays I use CommonsHelper). If I have not chosen the exact right template here, please just correct. The original is still present on Wikipedia. Thank you. -- Mdd (talk) 00:57, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Please use Commons Helper so that you do not make mistakes like that. Also remember to tag the file on Wikipedia with w:Template:Now Commons after you have moved the file so that it is deleted on Wikipedia. --Stefan4 (talk) 01:04, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Yes, as I was telling... nowadays I use CommonsHelper, and it works great. But that doesn't solve the issue with the File:Figure1 left.gif. -- Mdd (talk)

Sorry for the trouble. I copied exactly the same template from wikipedia and this is now resolved. -- Mdd (talk) 01:14, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

en:File:B68 toftir.png

Hej. Hvad tænker du om den? Kan en bold med et B og et tal være kreativt nok til at være beskyttet af ophavsret? --MGA73 (talk) 20:05, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Enligt File:Aalborg Broncestøberi skrifttype A, B og D.png är teckensnitten A, B och D för enkla, medan teckensnitten C och E är tillräckligt kreativa. Jag vet inte hur teckensnitten C och E ser ut, men bokstäverna i logotypen är nog jämförbara med teckensnitten A, B och D.

I nordiska länder verkar kreativitet ofta utgå från ett dubbelskapningskriterium på så vis att en bild inte anses vara tillräckligt kreativ om det är sannolikt att två olika personer oberoende av varandra kan framställa samma bild. Jag antar att domstolen ansåg att det var för liten sannolikhet att någon annan skulle kunna framställa en Global-kniv eller en Tripp Trapp-stol oberoende av de ursprungliga "konstverken", men jag vet inte vilka kvaliteter dessa besitter som WWF-pandan saknar.

Fotbollen är mindre kreativ än WWF-pandan som inte är upphovsrättsskyddad i Danmark. Jag vet inte om det räcker med att placera ett B och några siffror på fotbollen för att det ska anses vara tillräckligt kreativt, men i och med panda-domen tvivlar jag på det.

Nästa problem är amerikansk lag. Enligt målet mellan Hasbro Bradley, Inc. och Sparkle Toys, Inc. spelar det för den amerikanska upphovsrätten ingen roll om bilden uppnår verkshöjd enligt dansk lag. Under COM:TOO#United States nämns denna bild som upphovsrättsskyddad i USA. Den verkar jämförbar med fotbollen men är nog lite mer kreativ. Det finns en risk att bilden är upphovsrättsskyddad i USA även om den inte är upphovsrättsskyddad i Danmark.

Om filen behålls som "fair use" på engelskspråkiga Wikipedia finns det ingen risk att den senare raderas, men å andra sidan måste ett beslut fattas för fo:Mynd:Logo B68.jpg, som självklart inte ska märkas {{GFDL}}. --Stefan4 (talk) 20:40, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Tak for dit gode svar. Jeg tænker, at filen er PD-ineligible. Men der er selvfølgelig altid en lille risiko for, at domstolene vil komme til et andet resultat. I Danmark er det vist ikke usædvanligt at fodboldklubber (boldklubber) hedder eller har heddet noget med "B 1973" eller "B (et andet årstal)".

Det var ganske rigtigt fo:Mynd:Logo B68.jpg, som fik mig til at se på logoet. Normalt gør vi vist ikke noget ved at brugere lægger en fil op som egentlig er PD-ineligible op men sætter fx GFDL på. Så længe det er en fri lisens :-) --MGA73 (talk) 11:52, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Message from User:Peter Zelizňák

Odpoveď:

Dobrý deň, ospravedlňujem sa za oneskorenú odpoveď. Ale pracovne som bol vyťažený, takže som sa na wikipédiu nedostal. Socha pilot českého sochára Františka Pacíka sa nachádzala v areálu vojenskej leteckej školy v Košiciach. Tento vojenský objekt bol odovzdaný univerzite v Košiciach a policajtom. Pieskovcová plastika bola majetkom Ozbrojených síl Slovenskej republiky a preto bola v roku 2012 premiestnená na Leteckú základňu Sliač. Bol som prítomný pri demontáži z ktorej mám aj fotografiu. Pri inštalovaní sochy na letisku Sliač som nebol prítomný. Ministerstvo obrany Slovenskej republiky by malo byť schopné Vám podať vyčerpávajúcu odpoveď. V Ružbachoch som do dnešných ešte nebol. Sochy, ktoré boli na wikipédií som priradil k autorom- Ide asi o 7—10 sôch a s nimi sa môžete stretnúť na Sculptors from Slovaki (Category:Juraj Bartusz, Category:Jiří Svoboda. František Patočka, Category:Zdeněk Palcr. Autor fotografií je Ing. Mgr. Jozef Kotulič.

S pozdravom P. Zelizňák — Preceding unsigned comment added by Peter Zelizňák (talk • contribs) 2015-01-24T22:45:38‎ (UTC)

Which file is this about? --Stefan4 (talk) 22:55, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

File:Grave of James Stirling (1692-1770), detail.jpg

Hi Stefan4: Yesterday 25th january at 23:34 the user OgreBot has uploaded a new versión of this file not scaled. I supose the problem is solved. I'm sorry for the inconveniences. --Ferran Mir (talk) 18:18, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

File tagging File:Analisi-kendimatos.pdf

Thanks for the notice. I' ll take care of it but I need some time.Postscriptum123 (talk) 11:33, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Request to undelete images

Hi, Stefan4.

I hope all is good with you. I actually have permissions from both ̣̺Cheryl Tiu and Anton del Castillo, releasing the rights of their images to commons. These are the imagesː

It's just that I'm still grappling with how to transmit the letters. I sent letters to OTRS but have been met with no response. The permissions are in Jpeg and Pdf format. I hope to get a reply from you soon. Many thanks for being an active Wikipedian and for correcting meǃ How do I send the permissions to you? Samito1050 (talk) 06:27, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

I see that this also has been reported at COM:OTRS/N#Samito1050: Request for ticket number for "Request/s to undelete files", so I assume that this will be taken care of there. Do not report the same problem at multiple places. --Stefan4 (talk) 14:24, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Japanese nonsense content?

Please confirm if this content is nonsense in Japanese, as I suspect: File:Applicable Analyzer-tak.pdf. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 19:30, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

See Commons:Deletion requests/File:Applicable Analyzer-tak.pdf. --Stefan4 (talk) 13:56, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Metadata

Hello Stefan4, can you take out my name in the meta data of this file. File:Ricardo Salgado 2014.JPG. Thanks alot. Monart (talk) 09:27, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

PD-old kontra URAA

Hej igen. Har du nogle idéer her? Wikisource:da:Wikisource:Sletningsforslag#Carl_Nielsens_melodi_til_Der_er_et_yndigt_Land? --MGA73 (talk) 19:49, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Jag skulle anta att melodin är upphovsrättsskyddad i USA. Varför används PNG istället för w:Help:Score? --Stefan4 (talk) 15:23, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Tak. Øv det var en skam... Jeg tror at der er brugt png fordi brugeren ikke kendte Score - jeg kendte det heller ikke før nu :-). --MGA73 (talk) 17:54, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

File:Hibbertia stellaris.jpg

Delete it. It was my mistake, long years ago... Manuel Anastácio (talk) 21:44, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

The image seems to be in scope and should not be deleted. --Stefan4 (talk) 15:14, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Hi, can you restore an image?

Hi, Stefan.

I left a message at your en talk page. I wonder if you can restore the file there File:Ultraman gyango ruffian from outerspace 19660925.JPG which was a fair use file for the en page Ultraman?

There was long term edit warring by a user Ryulong who expressed ownership. I gave up fighting him, he deleted the image (after degrading it) and it was deleted as orphaned. I knew he would eventually be banned, which he has been, by arbcom. So I am hoping you can restore the original version of File:Ultraman gyango ruffian from outerspace 19660925.JPG - not the degraded version he uploaded, so I can restore it to the article. Thanks!

Medeis (talk) 04:03, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

OTRS permissions queues

Hello Stefan4. You are receiving this message as a license reviewer. As you know, OTRS processes a large amount of tickets relating to image releases (called "permissions"). As a license reviewer, you may have the skills necessary to contribute to this team. If you are interested in learning more about OTRS or to volunteer please visit Meta-Wiki. Tell your friends! Thank you. Rjd0060 18:54, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

File:Coastal-erosion-inland.jpg

Hi Stefan, can you help me understand what the issue is with File:Coastal-erosion-inland.jpg? I want the file to be public domain. Thanks, Tristan Loper (talk) 23:19, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

The file was created by w:User:Athene cunicularia. You can't change the copyright tag without permission from w:User:Athene cunicularia and you can't change the source information. --Stefan4 (talk) 23:27, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Permission granted. Thanks. Athene cunicularia (talk) 16:40, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Ancona - statua a Pinocchio di Vittorio Morelli.JPG

I understand it is not possible to use the PD-user license; instead PD-Italy is valid, right? --Horcrux92 (talk) 11:22, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

The template {{PD-Italy}} can only be used for photographs, not for statues. You need to wait until the sculptor has been dead for at least 70 years before you can upload the photograph. --Stefan4 (talk) 14:07, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Licensing?

Hello Stefan4: I got your message on my talk page and would like to clarify that the source of File: Falls skMap20 PassageNahr Auja.jpeg is here. I hope I can verify that the image is free content.

Atte. Luisedwin2105 (talk) 22:00, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

You copied the file from English Wikipedia, but instead of inserting the correct copyright tag as used on Wikipedia, you inserted a different copyright tag. --Stefan4 (talk) 17:09, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

I would appreciate you place the templates, because I'm not too familiar with this subject. Atte. Luisedwin2105 (talk) 21:20, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

Selivokhin concert programme license issues

I'm writing regarding a notification that the recently uploaded pictures of Vladimir Selivokhin concert programme may have no valid licensing. The pictures were presented to me by his wife, Irina Korobyina, and she said the organizer of concert has no legal claims against using it. If needed, I can present a letter from the organizer that he claims no violation of their rights to use this program. Should I do this and in what form should I do this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by AFLee (talk • contribs) 2015-03-30T16:28:02 (UTC)

The files were nominated for deletion by me because they seem to be out of scope (but I must have missed that some of them are in use in ru:Селивохин, Владимир Витальевич, making them in scope). Another user nominated them for deletion because there is no information about the copyright status of the images. The copyright holder should follow the procedure at COM:OTRS so that permission can be documented. The copyright holder to the text is presumably the person who wrote the text, and the copyright holder to the photographs is presumably the person who took the photographs. --Stefan4 (talk) 17:07, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

Brendan Fraser

Main gallery: w:Special:PermanentLink/654196754.

File:Portrait photograph of Brendan Fraser.jpg

150px

Hi Stefan4, you may remember me from the "Great 75th Anniversary Spam Can Photo controversy of October 2014".

I was wondering if you thought this → 15px was the sort of picture we should be using? Not particularly flattering. A new editor uploaded, and then added it to the Brendan Fraser BLP infobox on Wikipedia, twice. The uploader says they "edited" it. AGF but I'm wondering if they 'photoshopped' it to look worse? Regards, 220 of Borg (talk) 08:47, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

I think that one of the other pictures in Category:Brendan Fraser would look better, but this seems to be more of a content issue which I think is better to sort out on the talk page of the article. I have renamed the file as I do not think that 'PORTRAIT.jpg' is a suitable file name.

This is a low-resolution file with no EXIF. This could indicate that the file is a copyright violation from somewhere else, but I can't find any copies of it anywhere else using Google. Do you think that it might be a screenshot from a film or TV series? The face looks strange in a way which suggests that it may have been taken from a film sequence where he is talking and therefore moves his lips. --Stefan4 (talk) 14:04, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

The picture was reverted back by another editor to the 'better' one. I too did the Google Image search on it, without luck. I brought it up at wp:BLP/N. A fair bit of recent vandalism on Frasers' BLP, so I was wondering if he was in the news for some reason, but apparently not. The fact that it was: a new editor, only WP edits, 'unflattering' picture, was returned to page without comment, and editor claims to have "photographed and edited" picture, made me more suspicious. Possibly Fraser was just peeved at being photographed without make-up? I think winding up the red channel on an editing program could have the effect of making his face more 'ruddy. Ardfern took some of those pictures, maybe they have some thought? 220 of Borg (talk) 02:49, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Files on WTS

Hi. Is there anything we can do to finish the job copying files from wikitravel?

I'm thinking that

1. All files in http://wts.wikivoyage-old.org/wiki/Category:Files_with_the_same_name_on_Wikimedia_Commons could be deleted.
2. Files in http://wts.wikivoyage-old.org/wiki/Category:Files_not_moved_because_they_are_in_use_on_Wikitravel could also be deleted now?
3. Files in http://wts.wikivoyage-old.org/wiki/Category:Files_to_be_kept_locally could also be deleted. They are probably unfree and copied to the local wikivoyage if needed. If any are free and usable they can be copied to Commons.
4. Files in http://wts.wikivoyage-old.org/wiki/Category:Files_to_be_ignored does probably not have a good source. If source can't be found they should be deleted. If eligible for fair use they are probably copied to local wikivoyage. If any are free and usable they can be copied to Commons.
5. The rest of the files in http://wts.wikivoyage-old.org/wiki/Category:All_files_on_WTS ? Well probably they do not have a good source. If source can't be found they should be deleted. If eligible for fair use they are probably copied to local wikivoyage. If any are free and usable they can be copied to Commons.

It would require a lot of work if we have to check and delete all file one by one. Do you have a fast way to do the job? Any tools or tricks? For example. If file is on Commons and bot-check-template is removed then the file should be checked and perhaps we could mass delete without further check.

If any files are to be copied to Commons. Do you have a good tool? My bot does no longer like to work on wikivoyage. --MGA73 (talk) 20:41, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

If files have been copied to Commons, then it should be safe to delete them provided that it has been checked that everything has been moved to Commons. I think that User:Magog the Ogre once provided something similar to toollabs:magog/commons images.htm for Wikivoyage-old which may be used for checking transferred files, but I don't know if that feature still is available. Files to be ignored or kept locally can probably just be ignored. Files "on Commons" and files to be ignored or kept locally are excluded from the "all files" category if I remember correctly, so if those are just ignored and left around forever, this shouldn't disturb any transfer to Commons process. The "All files" category may contain files which can be copied to Commons. If files can't be copied to Commons, I guess they should be deleted or marked with a problem tag.

If the tools no longer work, then I guess that new tools would have to be written. --Stefan4 (talk) 11:24, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

Thank you. I asked Magog if the tool could be fixed without too much work. We could perhaps just ignore the files but I think it would be nice if WTS was one day checked and empty :-) --MGA73 (talk) 14:50, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

Man kunne også starte omvendt, fx Category:Files moved from wts.wikivoyage to Commons requiring review og så se om alt er ok, og hvis det er det, så slette filen på WTS, hvis den ikke allerede er slettet. Jeg startede selv på kategorien, men det viste sig, at der ikke var blevet ryddet op efter botten, så derfor var der en masse links, der ikke virkede (henviste til wts.wikivoyage i stedet for wts.wikivoyage-old. Har forsøgt at rydde op i det, så med lidt held går det lettere nu :-)

Jeg så du har rettet File:Cockburn Town, Grand Turk.jpg. Var det et tilfælde, eller har du fundet på noget smart? --MGA73 (talk) 18:45, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Det finns cirka 3000 filer på engelskspråkiga Wikipedia som flyttats till Commons utan att märkas med w:Template:Now Commons, ofta med fel källa och licens på Commons, till exempel {{self|cc-by-sa-4.0}} här men {{non-free album cover}} på Wikipedia. Jag försöker titta igenom filerna och lägger till {{original upload log}}, "Now Commons", {{copyvio}} och en del annat, men det tar lång tid att gå igenom alla filer. Det var därför jag redigerade File:Cockburn Town, Grand Turk.jpg: jag upptäckte att filen även fanns på Wikipedia. --Stefan4 (talk) 16:41, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Min bot fandt og markerede engang den slags filer, men tag_nowcommons.py har ikke virket for mig længe, så det under mig ikke, at der er mange filer uden en "NowCommons". Hvis vi tilføjede et link til Magogs tool på NowCommons og satte skabelonen på de 3.000 filer, så ville det nok være hurtigere og lettere at overføre gamle versioner og tilføje original upload log på filerne. :-) --MGA73 (talk) 21:05, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

I made the suggestion with the link at en:Template_talk:Now_Commons#Suggest_to_add_link_to_move_old_versions. Adding NowCommons should be easy for files with the same name. --MGA73 (talk) 21:19, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Det största problemet är att det ofta anges fel upphovsman och licens på Commons. Det är det som tar mest tid att rätta. Titta på File:Carretera Federal Mex 102.png till exempel. --Stefan4 (talk) 21:28, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Sådana här filer, där någon byter ut {{cc-by-sa-3.0}} mot {{cc-by-sa-4.0}}, tar bort {{OTRS permission}} och anger en annan upphovsman, tycker jag är ett stort problem. --Stefan4 (talk) 22:44, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Can we like, not split this discussion? I will patch something together for this soon. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 22:50, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

I wish that people wouldn't transfer files like this from enwiki... Now tagged {{copyvio}} and {{original upload log}}. --Stefan4 (talk) 22:58, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Sorry about this Magog the Ogre. We are discussing 2 things here: 1) What to do with files on WTS and 2) What to do with files on en.wiki that is also on Commons but does not have a NowCommons.

Regarding WTS we wait untill you can find some time to see if it is possible to bring your tool back to live.

Regarding en.wiki files we discussed if it was a help to tag all the files with NowCommons even if many of them are crappy transfers. Personally I think it would help to tag the files provided that some trigger happy en.wiki admin does not mass delete files without checking the files properly. --MGA73 (talk) 15:35, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Stefan if we are to tag files with NowCommons I think that we remove files with a non-free license from the list. That way we remove many of the copyvios. If we also remove files with a different name on Commons then it is very simple to add the NowCommons tag with add_text.py or replace.py. That way we could perhaps have more users help check the files. --MGA73 (talk) 20:46, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

I'm slowly doing this:

• Add original log to Commons, if missing.
• If old revisions are missing, add those using Magog's tool.
• If copyvio on Commons, tag as copyvio. In some cases, "no permission" or deletion requests are used instead.
• If the copyright tag on Commons is wrong (e.g. uploaded as {{cc-by-sa-3.0-migrated-with-disclaimers}} or {{PD-old-100}} on enwiki but {{cc-by-sa-3.0}} on Commons), then tag as {{wrong license}}. I'm skipping this if the file has been nominated for deletion as the wrong licence should be obvious from the deletion rationale.
• If the file hasn't been nominated for deletion on Commons, add w:Template:Now Commons to Wikipedia.

This still leaves a lot of cleanup to do when users do not move files correctly (with wrong source, author and licence). With an original upload log and {{wrong license}}, people would still be able to find that something is wrong even if someone deletes the file on enwiki without first fixing the file on Commons. I'm not sure if it would be a good idea to tag files with "NowCommons" automatically as some enwiki admins might delete files without inserting the correct source, thereby making it impossible to find the problem in the future. Adding an original upload log and "Now Commons" seems to take me about half a minute per file. The number of files to tag went down from 3088 files yesterday to 2942 today. --Stefan4 (talk) 21:56, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

You are ofcourse welcome to fix the files any way you prefer.

But if you add {{Now Commons|bot=Some bot}} then there will be a warning in the template saying:

"Be careful. This file is tagged by a bot (Some bot). Be sure to check the file at Commons before deleting this file."

It is not a guarantee against stupid admins but it is a start :-) --MGA73 (talk) 22:24, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Right. But "bot=Some bot" should only be used if the tag was added by a bot. Maybe there should be a way to tag files when it is confirmed that the data on Commons contains errors, for example {{NowCommons|errors=yes}}. --Stefan4 (talk) 22:28, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Yes "bot=Some bot" is supposed to be used when the tag is added by a bot. My idea was that you made a list of free files on Commons with the same name and then a bot (my bot?) added {{Now Commons|bot=MGA73bot}}. If you add the tag with AWB you could add {{Now Commons|bot=Stefan with AWB}} to indicate that the file is NOT checked by a human.

The important is to indicate that admins should be extra careful. I do not think we need an extra option because the template is complex enough as it is. We can just make the text red, bold or change the wording if you have any ideas. --MGA73 (talk) 05:57, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Stefan now you and I are also sysops on http://en.wikivoyage-old.org - you probably did not even know that you wanted those rights ;-) So now we can check deleted files and delete files if we want to. --MGA73 (talk) 11:45, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Magogs tool works good on WTS and could also be usefull on en.wikivoyage-old once wts is done - in a few years ;-). How are things going with en.wiki? I fixed a few just to test. There is a lot of crappy transfers :-( --MGA73 (talk) 14:20, 13 April 2015 (UTC)--MGA73 (talk) 14:20, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

File:Clonazolamtransparent.png

---

Thank you for uploading images from Wikipedia to Commons. However, the file you uploaded, File:Clonazolamtransparent.png appears to be a scaled down version of the version on Wikipedia. Please reupload the full version of the image. You can then tag the scaled down version with {{duplicate}} to have it deleted.

Consider using CommonsHelper to provide the correct image description and licensing tags. Thank you,

Stefan4 (talk) 20:49, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Hi, I dont understand your message but I download the file on wp:en : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Clonazolamtransparent.png as notified on File:Clonazolamtransparent.png I don't work this image. Bye --41.188.20.187 14:12, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

You downloaded a thumbnail of the picture, not the full-size file. Make sure that you use Commons Helper in the future so that files are copied correctly and with a copyright tag. --Stefan4 (talk) 14:19, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

It's not a thumbnail but the original file of ‎(4,937 × 5,290 pixels, file size: 168 KB, MIME type: image/png) https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/d/de/Clonazolamtransparent.png --41.188.20.250 14:45, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

The original file is 4,937 × 5,290 pixels but you uploaded a thumbnail with 559 × 599 pixels. --Stefan4 (talk) 14:52, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Okay, I see on history you repair that. Thanks a lot! I don't know how I made with this simple picture. There is still yet an error on licence. The template {{PD}} don't work no more ?? Ciao and thanks for your help --The Titou (talk) 03:23, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Hi. I added {{PD-chem}} instead :-) --MGA73 (talk) 18:14, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Ancient deletion requests?

I noticed you added deletion requests from years ago to a current list. Many of those requests were poorly formed, aren't listed on the file themselves, are about a file that has been deleted already ... don't you think it's better to delete them rather than make people review them? --GRuban (talk) 13:35, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

I checked some of them. I agree than many of the DR's could be deleted. --MGA73 (talk) 14:45, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Well, if a user makes a deletion request, then I think that they should at least be reviewed by someone, in case some of the files should be deleted. I agree that many of them have poor rationales, and the files have sometimes already been deleted. There should be no additional old deletion requests to add to log pages as all of them already have been added, but a few new ones pop up once in a while. --Stefan4 (talk) 20:58, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Stefan2 + Stefan4

Det ser ud til, at du nu er ejer af begge konti :-) Vil du så lave dobbelt så meget nu? :-D --MGA73 (talk) 14:01, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Vi får väl se. :) --Stefan4 (talk) 21:23, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Fair use bot

Hi Stefan, in a BAG discussion, you dais that you were going to write some code for auto-tagging of orphaned fair use images. Have you started working on it? I noticed that you hadn't been around :en in a few days, so I ran the query and tagged everything that was orphaned. (It's an arduous process - one that definitely needs to be automated to free up the human time involved.) If you haven't started it yet, I found a C# toolkit (a language I actually know) for editing Wikipedia and I can take a stab at creating the bot. Please let me know if you have started the project. --B (talk) 15:01, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, I tried to code the NFCC#9 task from that discussion, but got stuck and forgot about it. I see that you have submitted an NFCC#7 task, {{subst:orfud}}, and I have now submitted the other NFCC#7 task at w:Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Stefan2bot 2.

The problem with the NFCC#9 task is that there is a request at w:Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/DASHBot 5 to give a notification to the user who added the file to the page, but there doesn't seem to be an easy way to identify this user. --Stefan4 (talk) 21:06, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

move|2=2

Hi. What does for this kind of edit? --Pierpao.lo (listening) 11:58, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

It means that the file should be renamed per reason "2" but that the target file name is unknown. I used COM:VFC's "prepend any text" option to add it. --Stefan4 (talk) 20:18, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Correcting upload information

Hello. Rather than placing a {{wrong license}} tag on images which have incorrect licenses and/or attribution, could you please fix it? As it is, you're tagging the images, but you're leaving the majority of the work to the administrators who have to clean it up. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 22:09, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, Magog. It's one of the things that User:MGA73 and I discussed above under #Files on WTS. The problem is that there are a few thousands of files which exist on both Wikipedia and Commons but without "NowCommons" templates, and the question is how to best handle these files. Some of these files have completely wrong source and copyright information on Commons because someone has taken a (free or unfree) file on Wikipedia and uploaded it as "own work by the uploader". --Stefan4 (talk) 15:23, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Wikivoyage

Hej. Jeg har prøvet at tilføje upload log for denne fil. Men ingen af disse tools virker for mig. Virker det for dig?

Hvis du en dag har et par minutter til overs må du meget gerne tjeke et par filer her da du jo er super god til at finde ud af om filer kan flyttes til Commons :-) Jeg tænker, at vi bare skal slette dem der ikke kan flyttes. --MGA73 (talk) 14:38, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

File:Pornographies of Japan (censored).jpg

File:Pornographies of Japan (censored).jpg has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry. If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue. Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

FredWalsh (talk) 10:37, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

no license?? there is!

If you had thrown an eye into the descriptions of the files, marked with "no license since .." by you, you would have recognized, that there only was a closing ">" at the end of "<gallery" missing. This made the license positioned after it not machine-readable. But there was a license to all the mentioned files:

• File:Walter Bullert 1955 Arbeiter der Glasindustrie Weißwasser 1.JPG
• File:Walter Bullert 1955 Arbeiter der Glasindustrie Weißwasser 2.JPG
• File:Walter Bullert 1955 Arbeiter der Glasindustrie Weißwasser 3.JPG
• File:Walter Bullert 1955 Arbeiter der Glasindustrie Weißwasser 5.JPG
• File:Walter Bullert 1955 Arbeiter der Glasindustrie Weißwasser 6.JPG

It's cc0 1.o. --Tommes ^{(Roter Frosch)} 18:33, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

Oops, I didn't realise that there was an invisible copyright tag on the pages. Sorry. --Stefan4 (talk) 22:15, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

Lisacinzia file

Pictures are license from me. Dont put it out. I want spend it to wikimedia. Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lisacinzia (talk • contribs) 2015-05-24 (UTC)

Comment: This seems to relate to the file File:Lago dei quattro cantoni tramonto.jpg. --Closeapple (talk) 22:57, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

The file was deleted as a copyright violation. This usually means that the file appeared somewhere else on the Internet before it was uploaded to Commons. If you are the copyright holder, then please follow the instructions at COM:OTRS. --Stefan4 (talk) 14:19, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Devyn Rose

Hello,

Thanks for your message on the Devyn Rose image. I thought the Flickr link was sufficient - or is it not working? The photographer is new to the website so he might not have done the right thing? Please let me know. Karst (talk) 09:34, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

When you uploaded the file, you only specified that the file comes from Flickr, but didn't reveal where on Flickr you found the picture, and a reverse image search didn't help, so it wasn't possible to verify that the file indeed was from Flickr or that it was freely licensed. Another user later found the picture on Flickr. --Stefan4 (talk) 12:51, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing that out. Strange, because I did put the image link in there, but somehow it did not appear. Karst (talk) 22:12, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Bureaucrat

Thank you for your positive vote at Commons:Bureaucrats/Requests/Jameslwoodward. I will do my best to live up the trust you have put in me. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 20:41, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Rover 400 Tourer

Thank you for renaming this picture. Regards Charles01 (talk) 19:08, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

criterion=1 (uploader's request)

Hallo!
Some uploaders are sorry because of your renaming declines.
It's important to keep the rules. You can find them on the Commons:File renaming site.
Look at the Criterion #1: At the original uploader's request. We have a reference here:

"Unless there is a compelling reason not to, uploader requests should be honored. This is a courtesy, not an absolute, however. If a file mover feels that a proposed new name is disruptive or inappropriate, they can suggest a different name or decline the request".

The uploader can always upload the same file, when he would cut it: so we would have many duplicates & the mess would be bigger... It's better to rename the file, than have many duplicates with different names.
That is my advice. But the decision is yours, of course :-)
Vielen Dank im Voraus für Ihr Verständnis. Alles Gute! Wieralee (talk) 19:18, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Which renaming requests are you talking about? Normally, I accept requests made by the uploader unless the new name is unsuitable (example) or if renaming the file would disrupt a deletion discussion.

I declined some like this where the uploader wanted to change "Loris" into "Floris" although it was quite obvious from the Wikipedia article w:Loris Francesco Capovilla that "Loris" is the correct spelling. If renamed, the file would immediately have qualified for renaming per reason #3.

I note that I made a mistake with File:Biörn Riese.JPG: the user who added the {{rename}} tag asked to have a year added to a lot of files, some uploaded by the user who added the {{rename}} tag and some uploaded by other users, and I meant to accept the requests where {{rename}} was added by the uploader but decline the requests where {{rename}} was added by someone other than the uploader, but I accidentally got this one wrong. Was there anything else? --Stefan4 (talk) 20:16, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

• No, that's all :-) It would be nice to harmonize that category, accorging to User's explanation. It's only a missunderstanding there, I know.
  

Thanks a lot for an answer and for cooperation. It's very kind of you. Vielen Dank! Wieralee (talk) 20:26, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

User:Wieralee, why is harmonisation needed? This looks like a textbook example of a situation where reason #4 doesn't apply, per the explanation at COM:FR#cite_note-4. This is neither a situation where a template needs files with similar names, nor a situation where the pictures form part of a book or any other similar set.

Any opinion on how to treat Special:Diff/43568711 with respect to file renaming? Should SergeWoodzing be allowed to request reason #1 renamings for files uploaded by EmilEikS per this diff? --Stefan4 (talk) 18:08, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

• Why do the Southerly Clubs want to have an order in their archive? I don't know. They just decided to organize their files after EmilEikS had retired -- and they delegated SergeWoodzing to do this. I don't know if it was obligated, but I think that only a member of Southerly Club can do this -- there are many specific informations about this photos and about this people. I think this knowledge is not available to outsiders... But maybe I'm wrong, of course... Wieralee (talk) 18:40, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

Про боьшую коряжку

Please, it isn't necessary to put the file to removal as the nominator removed it from removal.--KSK (talk) 16:43, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

User:Sergei Kazantsev, as long as there is an open deletion discussion, the template informing users of the discussion shouldn't be removed under any circumstances, and the deletion discussion has not yet been closed. --Stefan4 (talk) 19:45, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

"Non-admins may close a deletion request as keep if they have a good understanding of the process, and provided the closure is not controversial." In this case we have very clear situation. The nominator closed the deletion request. In the course of discussion a consensus was expressed -  Keep. Actually it means closing of discussion according to rules. Sorry, --KSK (talk) 20:10, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

That's unrelated to the removal of the {{delete}} template. As long as the deletion request remains unclosed, the template should remain on the page. --Stefan4 (talk) 21:00, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

File:Hoge Veluwe.JPG and File:Hoge Veluwe2.JPG

Hi. You tagged this with no permission because license was not added by uploader. It was uploaded on 8 October 2008‎ and according to the version of MediaWiki:Uploadtext then "Please select a compatible license from the pulldown menu below, otherwise all uploaded images are automatically licensed under CC-by-SA 1.0.". So can't we use Cc-by-sa-1.0? --MGA73 (talk) 18:10, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

I assume it's licensed under CC-BY-SA 1.0. I must have overlooked that when tagging the file on Commons. --Stefan4 (talk) 19:47, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Okay I'll undelete and fix :-) --MGA73 (talk) 19:52, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

If your bot still works can it delete the empty categories in http://wts.wikivoyage-old.org/wiki/Category:Files_by_user ? --MGA73 (talk) 19:59, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

I think that it is probably easier (and safer) to just go to http://wts.wikivoyage-old.org/w/index.php?title=Special:UnusedCategories&limit=50&offset=535 and manually delete the empty categories instead of writing a bot which does this automatically. --Stefan4 (talk) 21:02, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Re:File:Marchese Gerolamo Serlupi.jpg

No problem Stefan, I know the right spelling only because I met his great-great-nephew, Bobo, living in a beautiful palace near Pantheon, Rome. :-) Keep the good work, Alex2006 (talk) 12:51, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Rwanda CoA

Rwanda CoA keep arguments have come down to - they must copied it from us like Tanzania did & Czech CoA is protected by PD provisions (and Copyright refers to website design) so the same applies to Rwanda. Neither seems convincing but you might want to give your input on Commons:Deletion requests/File:Coat of arms of Rwanda.svg.--Twofortnights (talk) 20:27, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Disneyland FOP

https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Deletion_requests/2015/06/30&oldid=164654191

I'd put these on a subpage, because of concerns about a wall of text problem, ad so i could leave a single user talk page message.ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 22:33, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

If placed on a non-standard subpage, then no one will find them, neither users who wish to comment on deletion requests nor users who wish to close deletion requests. They need to be placed on a standard subpage so that they are given sufficient exponation. Since the deletion requests hadn't been placed on a standard subpage, I placed them on yesterday's subpage so that people who are interested in the requests will be given a week to comment on them. --Stefan4 (talk) 23:18, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Ah... I thought I had moved them to a standard sub/page , but fair enoughShakespeareFan00 (talk) 23:43, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Your 2cents on the other Dinseyland FoP here would be appreciated -https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/2015/06/24

ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 23:48, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

A concern was also exprsssed on my talk page that I'd applied the rule too harshly so bear this in mind when you respond. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 16:49, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Recent DR batch

In addition to the "protest" deletion rationale, my other reason for deletion of these was scope concerns.ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 16:49, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Copyright status: File:San Felipe topographic map.svg

I'm sorry, I forgot to place the template, and I have placed as in the rest of the series of maps. Regards.

Category:Phare de Ploumanac'h

Hej Stefan, I could need help from our resident copyvio hunter. This category is filled with images of a French lighthouse that was designed by architect Henry Auffret and built in 1946. According to the French Wikipedia, Auffret was still active in 1958, so the lighthouse is surely still copyrighted. The lack of freedom of panorama in France strikes again, but with all the different perspectives and motifs, I think we need an individual review for all images in this category (e.g. I can see a number of de-minimis).

It's getting late here and I'll be back tomorrow night. But in the meantime if you read this, please feel free to start a generic deletion discussion page. I will then add the relevant file links and tag the files one by one (unless you know someone with a bot). Regards, De728631 (talk) 21:54, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Now at Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Phare de Ploumanac'h. De728631 (talk) 18:07, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

A non free image question

I have a question with a bit of urgency I'm not sure whether you check Commons or English Wikipedia more often so I posted the question at English Wikipedia because that's where the issue is and I'm posting this here to ask if you would kindly take a look at it. Thanks in advance.

link to question--Sphilbrick (talk) 02:21, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

File:IrfanView Logo.png - OTRS filed at the commons

Hi.

Received your message about the deletion of the above mentioned logo. Irfan Siljan, the owner of the logo advised me by email that he filed an OTRS ticket on about July 7, 2015. There must be a way to search for his filing. I would gladly do so if you tell me how. All I can do is forward the emails he sent me regarding the subject. — Ineuw talk 16:21, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

As something has been sent to OTRS, I have removed the tag. I assume that an OTRS member will check what the message says at some point. In the future, please tag files like this with {{subst:OP}}. --Stefan4 (talk) 17:38, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for caring. Unfortunately, I was only a middleman in this affair, and didn't know my way around OTRS. I only filed once for myself back in 2007-2008, and all my uploads since are strictly public domain imaqes.— Ineuw talk 20:11, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Georg Obst

The relevant photograph was taken during the lifetime of Georg Obst. Under German copyright law all rights to this image are expired 50 years after publishing or first production (cf. § 72 Abs. 3 UrhG (Lichtbilder)). The rights have been expired latest end of 1988 (at least 24 years ago). --Hemeier (talk) 08:22, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Hi, the problem was that there was no valid license template witthin the description page. ({{PD-Art}} itself is not a license template) As far as I can see we dont have a template for the paragraf you mention. The only one I could find in Commons:Copyright_tags would be {{Anonymous-EU}}. PS: source=unbekannt is another reason to delete an image. Feel free to reupload the image but use a proper source and a a proper license template. regards. --JuTa 19:39, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

User:Hemeier & User:JuTa: That right is only relevant for photographs which do not meet the threshold of originality. Unfortunately, it seems that almost all photographs meet the threshold of originality of Germany, see Commons:Simple photographs#Country table. Photographs which meet the threshold of originality need to satisfy {{PD-old-70}} or {{Anonymous-EU}} instead. --Stefan4 (talk) 21:11, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, this is incorrect because your comment reflects the current legal situation. Georg Obst died in 1938. At this time, photographs enjoyed only a 10-year term of protection, indiscriminate of whether or not they were works of art (according to § 26 KUG (Kunsturhebergesetz 1907 - Art Copyright Act 1907)). The term of protection has expired at the latest in 1948. The new UrhG (Urheberrechtsgesetz - Copy Right Act 1965) became effective on 1st January 1966, when the term of protection was already expired at this time. Therefore, this particular picture did not benefit from the changed legal situation. Therefore, this picture is in the public domain. Please restore. --Hemeier (talk) 20:13, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Later on, the European Union created the w:Copyright Duration Directive, which stated that the copyright was restored in the entire European Union if the picture was still protected by copyright somewhere in the European Union. The copyright term in Spain had been 80 years from the death of the photographer since somewhere in the 19th century, so this photograph was still protected by copyright in Spain. Since the photograph was protected by copyright in Spain, it was given renewed copyright protection when Germany implemented the Copyright Duration Directive on 1 July 1995. --Stefan4 (talk) 13:44, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Heads-up

Hi, as an active colleague on upload projects, I thought I'd drop you a personal heads-up for my request for adminship, today being the last day for views. RFA's tend to only have a small proportion of the community taking part, so it can be difficult to judge if this is representative. --Fæ (talk) 13:35, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

change category -- tool for group changing

Hi Stefan4, May I request your help? You changed /corrected a lot of my joungest uploads on 2015-09-28, 16:58:54, for example this: File:D-7-79-131-58 Donauwörth, Reichsstraße 45, Stadtpfarrkirche.jpg Many thanks for that. My question ist for the wiki-routine you used. Cannot imagine You did it file for file? Cause I have to clean up a lot of my files into a proper condition (such out of WLM2014 too), such a tool would be helpful for me. Please remember, that I’m new and the wikispeach isn’t familiar to me yet. In other way, you can transfer my question to wikicommons.de? Thanks for Your help, rikiwiki2 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rikiwiki2 (talk • contribs) 2015-09-28T21:54:50‎ (UTC)

I used Cat-a-lot for that. You can enable it at Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-gadgets.

I think that you should read COM:OVERCAT as your files tend to appear in too many and too unspecific categories. --Stefan4 (talk) 09:53, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

oh, many thanks! I'll try it, step by step. Overcat i know, but i'll work on it after WLM2015 in step by step, too, as a newki AND busy in job, it needs time and is something for now comming long dark autumn nights... --Rikiwiki2 (talk) 12:32, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

File:SeychellesSharkChutney.JPG

---

Thank you for uploading images from Wikipedia to Commons. However, the file you uploaded, File:SeychellesSharkChutney.JPG appears to be a scaled down version of the version on Wikipedia. Please reupload the full version of the image. You can then tag the scaled down version with {{duplicate}} to have it deleted.

Consider using CommonsHelper to provide the correct image description and licensing tags. Thank you,

Stefan4 (talk) 14:07, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

Bonjour,

Il m'arrive effectivement de transférer sur Commons des travaux personnels de contributeurs qui déposent directement sur Wikipédia, au lieu de les mettre sur Commons. En l'occurence, je ne suis pas l'auteur du cliché, mais uniquement celle qui à fait le transfert. Pour avoir l'original, demandez directement à l'auteur qui l'à mis sur Wikipédia ! Son nom est noté sur le fichier ! Marianne Casamance (talk) 14:17, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

File:Krzysztof Kieślowski.jpg

Hello, Stefan. This image was extracted from File:Alberto Terrile.1994.Krzysztof Kieslowsky.jpg, which contains the proper licensing. I added a link to that original image page. Regards, Bede735 (talk) 16:39, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

File:Jacques Solomon.jpg

Hello! Why do you want to delete the file File:Jacques Solomon.jpg ? Greetings, --Paul-Eric Langevin 21:12, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

Request for vote

Please share your thoughts here - Commons:Deletion_requests/File:SrpskiPasoš.jpg. Thank you.--Twofortnights (talk) 19:09, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

File:Battle_of_Yingkou.jpg

Responded on discussion page of this image. -Prabodh1987 (talk) 22:48, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

File:Shreya Ghoshal performing "Haan Hasi Ban Gayi".ogv

Responded on the deletion entry for this file. -Prabodh1987 (talk) 22:48, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

You have been randomly selected to take a very short survey by the Wikimedia Foundation Community Tech team!

https://wikimedia.qualtrics.com/jfe/form/SV_3wl7zNEQdp6z9Vb

This survey is intended to gauge community satisfaction with the technical support provided by the Wikimedia Foundation to Wikipedia, especially focusing on the needs of the core community. To learn more about this survey, please visit Research:Tech support satisfaction poll.

To opt-out of further notices concerning this survey, please remove your username from the subscription list.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:51, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

FoP-Sweden

Hej Stefan! En fråga: faller en teckning på en informationsskylt (stadigvarande och under fri himmel) under "FoP-Sweden" och är därmed fri?--Holger.Ellgaard (talk) 07:39, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Komplicerad fråga. Enligt 24 § upphovsrättslagen får konstverk avbildas och en teckning är ett konstverk. Det finns en not på ett annat ställe i lagen som säger att 24 § även omfattar fotografier, vilket bör betyda att även foton kan avbildas enligt 24 §. Enligt 24 § upphovsrättslagen, ska det alltså inte vara några problem med att fotografera teckningar på skyltar som finns utomhus.

Undantag i upphovsrättslagen (såsom 24 §) får bara införas om Infosoc-direktivet (svenska, tyska) tillåter ett sådant undantag. Om den svenska upphovsrättslagen skulle strida mot Infosoc-direktivet i något avseende, är det Infosoc-direktivet som har företräde. I direktivet står följande:

“3. Medlemsstaterna får föreskriva undantag eller inskränkningar i de rättigheter som avses i artiklarna 2 och 3 i följande fall:
h) Användning av verk, till exempel arkitektoniska verk eller skulpturer, avsedda att vara stadigvarande placerade på allmän plats.”

Om ett verk inte är "avsett" att vara placerat på allmän plats, kan verket alltså inte omfattas av panoramafrihet någonstans i EU. En teckning är kanske inte alltid avsedd för detta. Det är kanske en sak om någon ritar en teckning i syfte att sätta upp en informationstavla men en annan sak om man illustrerar en minnestavla med en gammal teckning från en bok. Jag vet dock inte riktigt hur man ska avgöra om ett verk är "avsett" att vara stadigvarande placerat på en allmän plats eller ej. EU-domstolen kommer ibland med domar om hur man ska tolka de olika undantagen i Infosoc-direktivet, men jag tror inte att det har förekommit några domar om denna fråga. Det kanske är en god idé att fråga på COM:BB eller COM:VPC. --Stefan4 (talk) 14:31, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Tack för dit uttömmande svar. Det rör sig om en teckning på den här skylten som står vid Göta landsväg på Årstafältet. --Holger.Ellgaard (talk) 07:59, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

your email

Hi Stefan4,

I can't find your email adress. Regards. DenesFeri (talk) 08:10, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

I would also like to have your eMail address to write to you about the 1965 article I wrote abut the Seychelles Economy. Thank you for sending me your eMail address to dbprell@gmail.com. Dbprell (talk) 17:32, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Permission statements should be sent to OTRS, not to me. See COM:OTRS for instructions. --Stefan2 (talk) 18:39, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

I was only going to request that you do not remove the Study I did for the Governor of the Seychelles Islands back in 1965. It is now free for anyone to use. It is only of historical importance. Dbprell (talk) 20:47, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Hi Stefan, My sister has sent the permission. DenesFeri (talk) 09:07, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

File:Allamanda cathartica - Kerala 2.jpg

Hi,

I don't really understand this. The notice in this picture File:Allamanda cathartica - Kerala 2.jpg. My sister has to reemail it? DenesFeri (talk) 09:29, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

You wrote that your sister has sent something to OTRS, so I added the template {{OTRS pending}} to prevent that the file is deleted before the e-mail has been read. The next step is to wait until someone reads the message. --Stefan2 (talk) 10:01, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

OK, Thank you! DenesFeri (talk) 11:05, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

File:Optimizely-logo.png

Not sure what you are looking for here in terms of license? The image is the official company logo of Optimizely, and my understanding is that company logos can be used Fair Use for the purpose of referencing within an article on Wikipedia. --Salsakesh (talk) 23:15, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

See COM:FU. Fair use is not permitted on Commons. --Stefan2 (talk) 23:28, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

I see, what do I need to do? E-mail them? --Salsakesh (talk) 23:34, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

File renaming guidelines

Hi, I've seen that you have renamed File:USS Mustin (DDG-89) in the Republic of Korea Navy Fleet Review 2015.jpg just to change an "of". Following the renaming guidelines, the first criteria to decline a renaming is "Files should NOT be renamed only because the new name looks a bit better." Just for you to know. Cheers. --Ruthven (msg) 18:00, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

The request was added by the original uploader. According to COM:FR#cite_note-1, 'uploader requests should be honored' 'Unless there is a compelling reason not to'. It seems to me that examples 1-3 at COM:FR#Which files should not be renamed? are more about requests which do not qualify for renaming under criteria 2 & 3 but that they do not apply when the uploader requests renaming. Last month, there was some discussion about such requests at Commons talk:File renaming#criterion=1 (uploader's request). --Stefan2 (talk) 18:26, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

File:Outside Sean Kelly Gallery.jpg

File:Outside Sean Kelly Gallery.jpg has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry. If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue. Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

Thekohser (talk) 20:30, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

File:Philippe II, Duke of Orléans.PNG

Helloooooooooooo. I just saw you had declined my request to move the above picture to a more sensible title. (I.e. removing the ordinals (II) which are completely redundant. I do however think I put in the wrong request number in though. :/. Feel free to reply on my talk page. Simplegoose (talk) 12:06, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Removing redundant information is not a valid reason for renaming a file. Adding extra information is not a valid reason for renaming unless the filename is too ambiguous. There is some explanation about what "ambiguous" means at COM:FR#cite_note-2 and there is more information in last year's request for comments. The current file name identifies the depicted person, so the file name is not too ambiguous.

I suggest that you read COM:FR#cite_note-4. Renaming reason #4 is meant for files which are used by a template which depends on a certain filename syntax and for works such as books which are split up on multiple files. This is none of those. --Stefan2 (talk) 18:33, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

But then surely it makes sense to remove irrelevant/redundant information? :/ Simplegoose (talk) 23:08, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Removing redundant information is not a valid file renaming criterion, see COM:FR. Normally, it is up to the original uploader to decide the file name - and the original uploader is free to include redundant information in the file name. --Stefan2 (talk) 22:22, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

Coats of arms etc...

Hi Stefan - I have been pointed in your direction by a fellow contributor (Sfan00 IMG) and I hope we may be able to work together, in any small way, to enhance Wiki. You'll be able to see immediately by looking at User talk:Mabelina what's being going on, so to cut to the chase would uploading the 4th Earl of Bristol's coat of arms from lordbelmontinnorthernireland.blogspot.co.uk cause any issues? Many thanks & looking forward to hearing. Best M Mabelina (talk) 11:47, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

File:Mecklembourg-Strelitz, Helene.jpg

Hiiii, saw you declined the move of the above painting I only asked for it to be moved as her name is jumbled up and that in itself is a tad silly. Plus its a fairly simple title and does not really say anything at all. :/ Simplegoose (talk) 20:41, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Even then there arev two people in the painting. Simplegoose (talk) 20:42, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Files may only be renamed if the request satisfies a file renaming criterion. If you wish to change the rules, please start a request for comment on the guideline talk page. The filename correctly identifies the depicted person, so this case looks similar to "Only information is the location (narrow)" in Commons:Requests for comment/File renaming criterion 2, for which there was consensus not to permit renaming under reason #2. I overlooked the fact that there were two people on the painting, which maybe changes things in this case. --Stefan2 (talk) 22:10, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Banknotes of Taiwan

About your recent delete requests: Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Banknotes of Taiwan, the Central Bank of the Republic of China is a governmental institution and its data is allowed to be used by the public. According to the CBC website: "In order to facilitate better utilization by the general public of the information on this website, all of the Central Bank of the Republic of China (Taiwan)(herein known as CBC)’s publicly posted information and materials that are protected under copyright provisions may be utilized by the public without cost in a non-exclusive, reauthorization-available manner. The users may, without restriction on time and place, reproduce, adapt, edit, publicly transmit, or utilize in other ways, and develop various products or services (herein known as derivations)." Szqecs (talk) 02:16, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

• According to COM:CUR#Taiwan, ROC money is unfree. If you have evidence of the contrary, please start a discussion at Commons talk:Currency. Note that the page you linked to doesn't apply to "works specifically identified by the CBC". I don't know exactly which works that statement refers to. --Stefan2 (talk) 15:09, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

References

Hello

Good thing Imammuddini (talk) 20:15, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Hi

I realised something about what I was thinking on event Imammuddini (talk) 20:26, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

• What are you talking about? --Stefan2 (talk) 21:10, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
  • I am Nigeria what of you ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Imammuddini (talk • contribs)
    • I'm in Sweden. Why? --Stefan2 (talk) 18:16, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

Hi

Stepan I am Talking here from Nigeria what of you I want to know? Thank Imammuddini (talk) 21:41, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

• What are you asking about? Looking at your contributions here and on Wikipedia, it looks as if we have not had any interaction before. --Stefan2 (talk) 18:16, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

Hi

Okay thank is better I know where you are as knew mine no problem unless we share experience and moralist thank. Imammuddini (talk) 19:13, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

Libya

I cannot find the text to the 1984 Libya law, but most references I have seen is that it was about stronger deposit requirements of publications, and not a rewrite of the 1968 law. Not following those requirements do not result in the loss of copyright protection but I'd guess they would severely limit the rights. Most place I see mentions the 1984 law but then gives the text of the 1968 law, and at the least says the 1984 law is "based upon" the 1968 one. This paper seems fairly up to date, with references to both laws, but lists the durations as being the same as the 1968 law. They are basically relying on a Berne Convention article which allows countries which had long conformed to the Berne Convention to maintain shorter periods of protection than those which Berne otherwise began to be mandated in the 1970s. It sure seems that if the 1984 law changed any durations, that paper would mention it. The paper seems to be for a doctoral thesis, but they do appear to have at least seen the text of the 1984 law. It is possible there have been other amendments to the law, since several places do say that there are 50pma terms, but I can't tell if that was due to another unmentioned amendment, or a misreading. Not sure what to think. Carl Lindberg (talk) 18:55, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

According to SOU 1956:25 (right), the minimum copyright terms were first added to the Berlin Berne Convention, but didn't become mandatory until the Brussels Berne Convention. I suppose that a country could choose not to upgrade to the Brussels Berne Convention if it has already ratified an earlier version and it might be possible to keep a shorter term for pre-existing works. This page tells that Libya has ratified the Paris Berne Convention, but there are several Paris Berne Conventions. Given that Libya ratified the Berne Convention in 1976, I'd assume that Libya has ratified at least the 1971 Paris Berne Convention, where the minimum copyright terms are supposed to be mandatory.

I have no idea what Libya changed and I don't have time to read 400 pages of an academic paper, but I think that it would be useful to include a warning on all pages where we reference the 1968 law as we can't be fully certain what Libya changed between 1968 and 1984 until we get access to the 1984 law. --

Stefan2 (talk) 20:37, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Article 7(7) of the Berne Convention states: Those countries of the Union bound by the Rome Act of this Convention, which grant, in their national legislation in force at the time of signature of the present Act, shorter terms of protection than those provided for in the preceding paragraphs, shall have the right to maintain such terms when ratifying or acceding to the present Act. I wonder if that meant only countries which had previously agreed to the Rome Act (from 1928)... if so, not sure Libya would be allowed. But, some countries are still allowed to maintain shorter terms if they wish. Here is Libya's notification; they do explicitly say they agreed to the 1971 terms. So, it may well be that ratifying that the 1976 ratification is what lengthened the terms to at least Berne minimums of 50pma, even if they did not explicitly made a law amendment, and even if not mentioned in the 1984 act. Carl Lindberg (talk) 22:29, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Please remove nomination for deletion: File:Weinkellerei Wallot in Oppenheim Briefkopf.jpg

Hello Stefan2,

thank you for your concern regarding the image Weinkellerei Wallot in Oppenheim Briefkopf.jpg.

The image is a scan of the letter heading of the Wallot wine-making. The company was founded some when beginning/mid-19th century and stopped operations in 1912. There is certainly no longer any copyright attached to this letter heading.

Also - as stated in the file's comment box - I have been in touch with a descendant of the wine-making's owner. Although under German law they also would not have the right to permit usage, I was encouraged to use the scan.

Leshugenottes77 (talk) 17:43, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Vector map of Paris

Hello, I see your streets map of Paris 10th in vector. Can you do the same for Paris 11th and Saint-Denis with the stadium? --Jesmar ^{(fr) discussion / (en) discuss} 00:24, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Wallis Giunta

Hello. I came across this image image that was uploaded recently. I tried to list it for a license review, but this somehow doesn't appear in my toolbox. Perhaps you can look into it? Many thanks. Karst 10:16, 19 November 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Karst (talk • contribs)

• {{Licensereview}} is to be added if a file is sourced to a third party website and someone needs to verify the licence. In this case, the uploader seems to claim that the photographer is someone other than the uploader, so I nominated the file for deletion instead. --Stefan2 (talk) 11:47, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Comment by User:Trojasr

Stefan good morning, I don't understand what does unclear notability mean, would you help me to understan, I' m trying to pass an exam at university that consist at publishing on Wikipedia. Please help me to understand what's wrong. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Trojasr (talk • contribs) 14:49, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

• Wikipedia articles should be on Wikipedia, not on Commons. Wikipedia articles should not be in PDF format either. See Commons:Project_scope/es#Formatos PDF y DjVu. Try asking for help about Wikipedia at es:WP:C/A. --Stefan2 (talk) 18:10, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

File:Carnicerías Medina.tiff

As you've requested, I've split the file history of File:Carnicerías Medina.tiff. The older content is now at File:Carnicerías Medina 2.tiff. The newer content is at File:Carnicerías Medina.tiff. If you can, please update the summary / description of the two files to match the depicted content (in particular the files may have differing EXIF which may affect dates, etc.). You may wish to rename one or both files. —RP88 (talk) 16:32, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:2015 15" MacBook Pro Running El Capitan.jpg

The link to the original request was broken, so I do feel I deserve a cookie for this. :) Samsara (talk) 06:43, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

• The link worked for me. This DR illustrates why COM:FR#Which files should not be renamed? §4 should be respected: admins often delete the redirect instead of the file if a file is moved while nominated for deletion. --Stefan2 (talk) 14:44, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Catedral de Sevilla

¿Habla usted español? Quería hablar con usted del borrado de la siguiente imagen:

File:El retablo de la capilla de la Virgen de la Antigua visto desde la entrada lateral (Catedral de Sevilla).jpg

El autor de la página web de donde procede la imagen ha puesto en ella, literalmente, que: «La cultura debe ser universal, libre y gratuita. Por ello, este blog no establece ningún derecho de copia (excepto en fotografías ajenas cuyo origen se indica en cada una de ellas). Cualquier persona puede usar textos y fotografías sin permiso alguno; si quien lo haga desea indicar la procedencia le estaría agradecido, y si no, tampoco pasa nada.»

¿Qué opina al respecto?.Tiberioclaudio99 (talk) 14:15, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

• He corregido el nombre del autor y la licencia. --Stefan2 (talk) 14:47, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Tiberioclaudio99

¿Habla usted español?, porque yo por desgracia no hablo inglés aunque lo entiendo. Le agradezco que haya solucionado lo de esa imagen. He subido muchísimas imagenes a Commons de ese blog de la catedral de Sevilla y nadie se había quejado hasta ahora?

¿A todas esas imagenes hay que arreglarles lo del autor y ponerle esa plantilla? ¿Podría hacerlo usted automáticamente?.--Tiberioclaudio99 (talk) 15:02, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

File:Venstre general election results.svg

File:Venstre general election results.svg has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry. If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue. Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

Diannaa (talk) 19:42, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

File:Niuafo'ou crater lake Tonga (wpclipart.com, public domain).jpg

Hello, I answered on my user page, but maybe you haven't seen my answer.

I found this file there : http://www.wpclipart.com/geography/crater/Niuafo'ou_crater_lake__Tonga.jpg.html The author, Paul Sherman, claims it is a "Public Domain jpeg image". It is stated again in the Terms of use section of his website that the pictures are Public Domain. However, it seems that this is a retouched version of this picture : File:Satellite view of Niuafo'ou, 2005-03-19.jpg, already present on Commons. It has been taken by the International Space Station Crew on March 19th 2003, and it is public domain (at least in the US). (Look at the little clouds in the lower left corner for instance, they are the same on both pictures). Therefore, would'nt a retouched version of this picture be also in the Public Domain ? Skimel (talk) 10:41, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

Slette fil

The files have already been deleted by someone. --Stefan2 (talk) 00:31, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Hvordan sletter man en egen opplastet fil? Har gjort en feil. Teirik (talk) 21:13, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

• Filer kan endast raderas av administratörer. --Stefan2 (talk) 00:31, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Deleting files

How do i delete my two files/pictures. I did a mistake. Teirik (talk) 21:14, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

• Files can only be deleted by admins. --Stefan2 (talk) 00:31, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

---

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Deletion

Why my files being deleted. I wrote every one of them. Ja122580 (talk) 22:36, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

• The files appear to be out of scope for Commons. Text should be on other projects such as Wikipedia and shouldn't be in PDF format since it is difficult for other editors to edit PDF files. --Stefan2 (talk) 00:30, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

File:Uitikon01.JPG

As you've requested, I've split the file history of File:Uitikon01.JPG. The newer content remains at File:Uitikon01.JPG. The older content is now at File:Uitikon01 March 2006.JPG. If you can, please update the summary and categories of the two files to match the depicted content. You may wish to rename one, or both, files. —RP88 (talk) 17:47, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Question by User:Vincenthendriks

Dear Stefan2,

Thank you for your suggestion. I want to fix it. Is there any instruction in Dutch available?

Your sincerly, Vincent Hendriks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vincenthendriks (talk • contribs) 2015-12-05T12:19:52 (UTC)

Like Commons:Licentiesjablonen, you mean? Note that one of the pictures you took components from has been nominated for deletion as a potential copyright violation. --Stefan2 (talk) 16:19, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

File:News7 logo.jpeg

As you've requested, I've split the file history of File:News7 logo.jpeg. The newer content remains at File:News7 logo.jpeg. The older content is now at File:News7 logo 2.jpg. If you can, please update the summary and categories of the two files to match the depicted content. You may wish to rename the new file. —RP88 (talk) 16:52, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

• For one thing, does File:News7 logo.jpeg meet the Bulgarian threshold of originality? --Stefan2 (talk) 17:18, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

To be honest, I have no idea. It's probably below the threshold of originality for the United States. However, Commons has very little information on the threshold of originality for the former Eastern Bloc countries. English Wikipedia uses a few Bulgarian logos (e.g. en:File:BBT_logo.gif) with {{PD-ineligible-USonly}} presumably because of the uncertainly of whether or not they are below the threshold of originality in Bulgaria. Please feel free to nominate for deletion. —RP88 (talk) 17:48, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Now at Commons:Deletion requests/File:News7 logo.jpeg. Per COM:EVIDENCE, it's the uploader's responsibility to verify that the file is below the threshold of originality in the source country before uploading the file to Commons. --Stefan2 (talk) 21:21, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

a few questions

1

Hello Stefan2, I've got a few questions: First, how did you find the page [7] which has another name than File:Mordor.jpeg.jpg? I can't imagine how to find such an image in the internet. And why can a file which is on Commons since a month without any deleting request, not be renamed? There were no deletion requests before, and it has two extensions, so the reason 6 is exactly fitting. Do I have to search through the whole internet for a file before requesting a file rename? And how do I or you know, if the uploader hasn't got the rights for uploading such a photo? He could and should send an email to the OTRS team that he has those rights. But that's no reason not to rename the file before all that, is it? Kind regards --Bjarlin (talk) 00:06, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

According to COM:FR#Which files should not be renamed? #4, we do not rename files with copyright issues until those issues have been settled. File:Mordor.jpeg.jpg appears to be an unambiguous copyright violation, so I declined the request and then immediately tagged the file for speedy deletion.

You do not need to check whether a file is a copyright violation or not, but please don't request renaming if there already is a deletion tag on the page. Also, if someone discovers that a file is a copyright violation before fulfilling your renaming request, you should expect that the request will be declined.

You can search for images at https://images.google.com/. Click on the small camera icon in the search box and then paste the URL to the file on Commons into the URL textbox. Google will then find pages on the Internet which uses the image you are searching for. Doesn't always work if the uploader has modified the file before uploading it to Commons. You can enable a gadget at Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-gadgets which inserts a convenient link to Google Images on each image page for faster searching.

If a user uploads a picture and claims that the picture is 'own work by the uploader' but the picture appeared elsewhere on the Internet before it was uploaded to Commons, then it is typically assumed that the file is a copyright violation. If the uploader turns out to be the copyright holder (which seems very unlikely), then he can send evidence of permission to OTRS. --Stefan2 (talk) 00:58, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for explaining, how it can be possible to search. I can try that. --Bjarlin (talk) 01:41, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

2

The user also uploaded File:MV5BODA5MDc2NDI5OF5BMl5BanBnXkFtZTgwNDYzMTA2NjE@. V1 SX640 SY720.jpg which is also from Lord of the Rings. The upload has been in October, and since 4 December there is a permission template in it, but no speedy deletion template. So it seems, there are more ways handling the same issues. In this case, it seems to be an obvious thing, because he had 27 edits on Commons, but only 2 of them are not yet deleted, but also with deletion requests. The other files have already been deleted, and on enwiki, he is blocked indefinitely. It seems that the user is always uploading copyright violations.
I've much doubt about many files here (logos with an "own work" license especially). What about all the logos of Portpass19 for example who claims that he created them himself? Or what about old files from the 1960s with "own work" like File:GASBIINDO dan Soekarno jpg.jpeg (which should also be renamed, but perhaps will be deleted, I don't know)? --Bjarlin (talk) 00:29, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

I would probably have tagged File:MV5BODA5MDc2NDI5OF5BMl5BanBnXkFtZTgwNDYzMTA2NjE@. V1 SX640 SY720.jpg for immediate deletion if I had found the file before User:Motopark tagged the file for deletion. The file should obviously be deleted. I'm not convinced that there is a reason to wait for a whole week. I guess that the user simply used an upload wizard and clicked on some random buttons without carefully checking what the buttons said and then ended up with these two file information pages.

File:CCU Logo.jpeg, File:Confederation of Canadian Unions logo transparent.gif and File:Confederation of Canadian Unions logo.jpg are presumably not 'own work by the uploader'. I don't know whether they meet the threshold of originality of Canada. I don't think that we need three copies of the logo.

I listed some files for deletion at Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Arief pernando. I tagged a couple of other uploads by this user for speedy deletion as copyright violations. This leaves File:459ed88f7bb94095d6c271cb95b17db8 400x400.jpeg: is that file a {{PD-textlogo}} or not? --Stefan2 (talk) 00:58, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for dealing with those issues. I don't know, the last one looks like a textlogo with simple geometric shapes, but I don't know Indonesian or Canadian copyright. :-) --Bjarlin (talk) 01:41, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

I also don't know which of the three CCU Logos would be the best. But those seem to be logos with only simple geometric shapes (and the maple leaf of the Canadian flag should be PD), so they won't have to be deleted, I guess. But it could be the wrong license. --Bjarlin (talk) 01:48, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

3

How did you know that File:Matt.jpeg.jpg could be a copyvio? It didn't look even as one to me. It's not possible to search for every photo in the whole internet before requesting a rename (and if I did, I wouldn't find it anyway with another name). Then it wouldn't be possible to request any renames anymore. How is it possible to know, if a photo with a wrong name is a copyvio or not, if it doesn't look as one and if it has no deletion template? I thought, requesting rename is possible, if there is no deletion template on the file. After that, anyone can request deletion, if they think, it's anything wrong. I can't know, if users didn't make a photo themselves, if they claim that they did. What can I do about it? --Bjarlin (talk) 00:48, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

I discovered that the file was a copyright violation by searching for the file using Google Images. I do not always search for files on Google when evaluating renaming requests, but this time, I happened to do this.

You do not need to search for files on the Internet before requesting renaming, but if you find out that a file is a copyright violation, then please tag the file for deletion. If someone else discovers that the file is a copyright violation, then the worst thing which could happen to you is that your renaming request is declined. --Stefan2 (talk) 01:10, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Ok, but it's often not clear, if it's a copyvio or not, if the users claim, they created the files themselves. They could also upload files somewhere else and also here and have the rights for that. So, it's not that easy to find out. Is it very bad, if a file is renamed, and after that gets a deletion tag? Is there a disadvantage, if a file is renamed and after that tagged for deletion? I can't look into the future and can't guess which file will be tagged for deletion, if there is no tag already. If renaming requests are declined, it seems that I've done something wrong, but I don't know how I could avoid that, cause copyvios don't always look like copyvios. And others may not be ones.

The user who uploaded those Matt photos may have the rights to do so. He could be that person, he claims to be, and he could have those rights, so I don't see a clear copyvio there. Maybe he also has the rights for the Facebook photo. How can we know that? Is there a possibility on Commons for checking, if the user is that person? He also edits the article on enwiki with that name and he should be the person to do that. And he also claims to have created File:Matthew medhurst.jpg himself that shows the same person which he claims to be himself. He would have had paid an agency for making the photo to have the rights for the photo of himself, I think. Then the name of the photographer is missing. Otherwise it would be a selfie, but it doesn't look like a selfie. So maybe another copyvio. --Bjarlin (talk) 01:41, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

I don't think that you did anything wrong when you requested renaming of the file; you couldn't tell that the files were copyright violations.

If a file is likely to be deleted soon, then I can immediately think of three reasons to avoid renaming the file:

• If there is an ongoing deletion discussion, then the Commons admin who closes the discussion sometimes accidentally keeps or deletes the redirect instead of the file.
• If the file is deleted, then it is also necessary to delete redirects to the file. I sometimes notice that there are redirects to recently deleted files, so I'd assume that redirects aren't automatically deleted but that this creates extra work for Commons admins.
• If the file is in use, then the filemover script (GR) automatically updates links to the file on all Wikimedia projects. Check for example the article 30. Juni on German Wikipedia. You can see that I updated the name of a renamed file yesterday, but the history page also says 'gesichtet von Baumfreund-FFM'. So Baumfreund-FFM needed to check my edit and mark it as approved. The same verification process is also used on some other projects, such as the Finnish and Russian Wikipedias. A few projects, such as Commons, mark recent changes as 'patrolled', which is a similar process. I assume that it takes some time for the local wiki projects to mark edits as patrolled or approved. See also m:Meta:Babel#Global group filemovers where this problem is discussed.

If the file is going to be deleted in a few hours or days, then I think that it is unnecessary to rename the file, and by not renaming the file, I hope that I am also saving Commons admins and other wikiprojects some time. --Stefan2 (talk) 16:08, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

If there's no deletion or other copyvio tag, there can't be an ongoing discussion about it. The redirect can be more work, but it can also be easily deleted and otherwise, it's shown on the broken redirects page later. I think, it's more important to find those images than to ignore them and not requesting renaming because they could possibly be copyvios. And third, users can also request autoreview rights, when they are file movers. Then nothing would have to be marked manually. If it's only one use of the image, that's not much to do. And if there's no use globally, then nothing is to do at all. So it depends, how often a file is used or if it's used at all. Many of the images are not in use at all (for example: File:JPEG.jpeg just on the page with uploads of new users). That example image could be a selfie, so there would be no need for any permission. I don't understand this permission tag there, because I don't see a copyright problem with a possible selfie image, and the file name couldn't be worse than it is at the moment (the source page on Facebook isn't found by my browser, maybe it has been the page of the uploader, I don't know). --Bjarlin (talk) 21:16, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Decrypted description field: ella es conocida por salir con muchos chicos como mateo (sale en google maps ) esta informacion nos la paso una chca que no quiere que demos su nombre... y tambien le gustaba mauricio

Decrypted permission field: ʌisto.com (first letter not decrypted)

Decrypted other versions field: ell gusta de santiago

Date not decrypted.

I guess that the picture is a photo of someone the uploader knows. The picture seems to be out of scope, but does not necessarily need OTRS permission. I'll convert the tag into a deletion discussion. --Stefan2 (talk) 22:38, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Wow, I've never seen such a text on a file page. How did you know? :-) Actually, I thought, it could be just IPA, but also that didn't help me. Can you image, why the file description has been decrypted, so that's not readable anymore? But what does the date "ɨ5/0ɐ/ɨ5" mean? Perhaps 15/0.?/15 = the 15th of any month in 2015? If ɐ shall be 6, then it's the upload date 15 June 2015. And "ɯaxiverɡas" ist "maxivergas" then? This picture with its encoding is a very strange thing. --Bjarlin (talk) 00:22, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Trial and error. The text looked strange. Was it written upside down? Then I realised that if I converted the characters to similar characters (either by pronunciation or look), the description seemed to become standard Spanish text. I pasted the text into a text editor and used the 'replace all' when I had decrypted a character. I understood that the outcome had to make sense, so it was possible to guess what I should convert some strange characters into after I had converted the obvious characters. In the end, there was one character in the permission field which I could not identify, and I didn't attempt decrypting the numbers in the date field.

I agree that files with bad names should be renamed, and the fact that there are undiscovered copyvios on Commons should not prevent us from renaming files. However, once the file has been identified as being a copyright violation, there is no longer any need to rename the file. --Stefan2 (talk) 14:50, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Quite good, what you found out there. :-)

In the Greek alphabet Λ and λ both replaces "l", so if ʎ replaces an l, ʌ may decrypt a big L here, that would be Listo.com [8] Is that possible? And I'm not sure at all that that's a copyvio.

It's ok, if files won't be renamed, when shortly afterwards a possible copyright violation is found. It also may be that there will come a permission, and afterwards, the file is kept and not renamed anymore, because the template is gone, and remains where it is with the wrong file name. Or it may be, that there were more possible copyvios with the same name which were deleted before. And afterwards, one of them gets a permission and has to be restored. It's more work to find out which of 5 deleted files has to be restored, if that's a name like "jpg.jpg" where there were more deletions before. So I think that then it's better to rename and maybe delete it with a better name, if there's no page at all using the file. I don't think it's very good, if there will be tens or hundreds of different deleted files with names like "jpg.jpg" or similar in the next hundred years. All those files could get permissions and then it has to be found out which one was the one to restore later. I think that would be much more work than klicking once because of reviewing a renamed file in another wiki. --Bjarlin (talk) 21:17, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

4

Also, I didn't notice that the name of the uploader of File:Matt.jpeg.jpg was the same as the name of the subject of the photograph. In that case, it might have been better to start a deletion discussion instead. --Stefan2 (talk) 16:20, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

What to do now with the other image of the same person File:Matthew medhurst.jpg? I don't think that the license is right there, because it must be a selfie then, but it doesn't look like one. And is there any way on Commons for users to prove that they are the users they claim to be? A process for verificating the account names? If a person is not the person that he claims to be, but uploads pictures about such a person, then those accounts should be blocked. But how can that be verified? --Bjarlin (talk) 21:16, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Nominated for deletion. See also Commons:Deletion requests/File:Kurochka.jpg which was deleted today: the uploader of that file wasn't the photographer. --Stefan2 (talk) 21:04, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Ok, thanks. So there's no possibility to check on Commons, if a person uses an account name of a prominent person in the right way or not? This issue has to be checked in other wikis instead? I don't know either, if English WP checks it. What if a notable person with an article raises a complaint that another person edits with his own name in the article about himself, but has no right to use his name and pretending to be another person? Has this never been the case on Commons that persons use prominent names and upload photos of those persons? Is there no verification process for this? --Bjarlin (talk) 21:38, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

5

Is the permission template right for File:Oasis1997BeHereNow.jpg and File:R-1605707-1231722648.jpeg.jpg or should it be another one? The uploader claims to have created the artworks of Oasis himself, so he has to have the rights for the Oasis artworks and has to prove that. I think that's unlikely, but how can we know? What is the best way for those artworks with "own work" licenses? Sources are also missing. The covers of en:Stop the Clocks and en:Be Here Now (album) are other ones. That's all very complicated. --Bjarlin (talk) 02:33, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

I marked File:Oasis1997BeHereNow.jpg and File:R-1605707-1231722648.jpeg.jpg as copyright violations, so I assume that they will be deleted soon.

The covers of en:Stop the Clocks and en:Be Here Now (album) which are used on English Wikipedia have been uploaded locally and are not listed as 'own work by the uploader'. English Wikipedia allows you to upload such pictures under the w:WP:NFCC policy, but Commons only allows such photos if there is OTRS permission available. --Stefan2 (talk) 16:20, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I know about fair use there, but the images were other ones, it's not the same source. That's what I meant, there was no source for those images and the images were not the covers of the albums as one may have thought. I just looked on English WP for the album covers, because I thought, I'd find those images there (with fair use license), but that wasn't the case. I've no idea, where those images came from, so I can't know, if they were copyvios (from where?) or not. If they had been the same, it would have been easier. --Bjarlin (talk) 21:16, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Photos of painting as postcard

Hi Stefan2, can you please take a look upon File:Bildschirmfoto 2014-11-25 um 09.53.51.png and File:Bildschirmfoto 2014-11-25 um 09.49.57.png. I corrected some of the information. The painter Moritz Coschell is dead since more than 70 years, also the author of the text on the postcard, Ilse Weichert. The photographer of the painting is not clear, it must have been between 1941 and 1942, before the postcard has been sent. Maybe Moritz Coschell made the photo himself or another person of the family, the uploader may be the heir or co-heir. The postcard must have been published in 1941 or 1942, so clearly after 1923, but over 70 years ago. The licence is wrong, it can't be PD-old-70-1923. Is there a way the screenshots can remain on Commons, even if the photographer is unclear? The painting and the text of the postcard are PD-old in Germany. --Bjarlin (talk) 02:38, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

The painting itself, File:Porträt Frau Ilse Weichert, Wien 1941.jpg, has also the wrong licence. It has been painted in 1941, so it's impossible that "it was published (or registered with the U.S. Copyright Office) before January 1, 1923", as the licence says. Is there any better licence for such cases? I've only found Template:PD-old-auto-1996, but the painting hasn't been in the public domain in Austria in 1996, so it's also wrong. What now? --Bjarlin (talk) 04:19, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

In Europe, the copyright typically expires 70 years after the death of the author. de:Moritz Coschell died in 1943, so all of his works should be in the public domain in Europe (except Spain).

The photograph seems to be a postcard and the photographer isn't named. As it is a postcard, I assume that the photograph has been published. In most European countries, the copyright to a photograph by an anonymous photographer expires 70 years after the photograph was published, unless the photographer's identity becomes known before this point. {{Anonymous-EU}} presumably applies.

On Commons, we also care about the copyright status in the United States, see COM:L#Interaction of US and non-US copyright law. In United States, the copyright term to Austrian works usually expires 95 years after the work was first published, regardless of whether the author is anonymous or not, and regardless of when the author died. The main exceptions are when the work was published before 1923 (the copyright has already expired), when the work was first published after 1977 or is unpublished (complex copyright rules), or when the author died before 1926 (the copyright has usually expired). I would assume that no exception applies in this case and that the painting and photograph are copyrighted in the United States for 95 years from publication.

Publication of a painting is a bit complex, see COM:PACUSA. I would assume that publication of the postcard also constitutes publication of the painting. If this was done in 1941, then the copyright expires in 2037 in the United States.

---

As a general rule, the copyright to a European work expires at some point in Europe and at a completely different point in the United States, and the copyright term may differ by up to a couple of decades. USA can either provide a longer copyright term, or a shorter copyright term. A similar copyright expiration mess also applies to the protection of United States works. In this French court ruling, the French supreme court ruled that w:His Girl Friday is protected by copyright in France despite being in the public domain in the United States, and I think that a German court came to a similar conclusion in this court ruling about w:The Big Book (Alcoholics Anonymous). --Stefan2 (talk) 02:21, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

I have to think about all this, there are so many different licences. Thanks for handling this and for the infos. Paintings which are in the public domain, but created in the 1920s, 1930s or early 1940s seem to have no chance to get any public domain licence because of the U.S. law. So those paintings have to be uploaded locally on different Wikipedias. I haven't read through the court decisions yet, but I'll do that later. Why can't global copyright be easier and better to understand, then there surely would also be less copyvios. ;-) I'll leave you some screenshot problems below, I don't know which way is best to tag those things. I think you can find out easily. :-) --Bjarlin (talk) 23:00, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

File:Se-Catedral-Exterior (4), Sé do Porto, 2004.png

I renamed this screenshot, because the source is on Commons and it doesn't have to be deleted because of copyright reasons. But wouldn't it be better to take the original jpg File:Se-Catedral-Exterior (4).jpg and cut it the same way instead of using a png screenshot of the original? What is normal, should this file better be deleted and the 2 usages of this file in articles about Romanesque architecture on en-Wikipedia be replaced by another version of the original? I think, a jpg file would be better than this png screenshot version, or doesn't that matter? --Bjarlin (talk) 03:41, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

The uploader can crop the picture in any way he wants. It would probably have been easier for him to crop the file using COM:Croptool instead of taking a screenshot. --Stefan2 (talk) 14:26, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

I see, then there is no preference for a normal photo and no preferred format for different cases. I thought png files were preferred for real screenshots of free computer software ot such things, and jpg files for normal photographs. So jpg is just easier, but not better. Maybe I'll try the tool some day, thanks for the info. --Bjarlin (talk) 22:50, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Screenshots

Here is a screenshot from the internet with "own work": File:Woops-com-tr.JPG‎. The Turkish text just says "Woops screenshot". I don't know, if the screenshot is from his own homepage, but if it is, then there is no OTRS permission. So what's best now? He only uploaded 3 "Cross-wiki uploads from tr.wikipedia.org", whatever that means and however this is possible. All from that homepage woops.com, seems to be just advertising (also the description for File:Woops.jpg is just advertising style). A name Ekran Görüntüsü is on the other file, but it's unclear, if that's the uploader. All three files unused now. 7 edits on tr-WP, 6 of them deleted, maybe a deleted article of the same website. Perhaps just out of scope, if not notable? What do you do with such cases? --Bjarlin (talk) 23:15, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

More advertising, another user: File:Ekran Resmi 2015-01-20 17.57.17.png, only edit globally, also a screenshot ("Ekran Resmi"). It's on Commons since April now. --Bjarlin (talk) 23:23, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

• All files are out of scope in my opinion. I tagged three of them for speedy deletion as copyright violations and started a deletion request for the last one. "Cross-wiki upload" means that the user has used a feature in VisualEditor on Turkish Wikipedia. See also COM:AN#Cross-wiki uploads. --Stefan2 (talk) 23:29, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, very many cross-wiki uploads now. Not the very best thing, as it seems. Let's see, how long that remains, as it is. --Bjarlin (talk) 00:01, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

As I also wrote at the deletion request, "Ekran Görüntüsü" also means "screenshot", like "Ekran Resmi", see also Category:Screenshots with more translations for "screenshots", there it is translated as "Ekran Görüntüsü" and not as "Ekran Resmi". I'm now looking through the other translations, some are the same as at Commons talk:File renaming, others are different or missing. --Bjarlin (talk) 23:09, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

Another screenshot ("Ekran Resmi"): File:Ekran Resmi 2014-10-22 14.19.07.png. This user's talk page looks this way: User talk:Mithrandirt#Copyright violations. The last chance for this user has already been in the past and there were more copyvios afterwards. The photo shall be "own work" once more, but it has been found on Google images and Tineye here (no, Tineye no results). Maybe, it would help with those screenshots to search for the different "screenshot" words in the Commons namespace, as the files of new users are found automatically in the internet there. --Bjarlin (talk) 00:01, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

This user has uploaded two files which haven't been deleted yet. I tagged both as copyright violations. --Stefan2 (talk) 00:39, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. So let's see, if it gets better the next time he uploads something. -–Bjarlin (talk) 22:51, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

Is a screenshot of a user talk page with "own work" possible? See File:Salatonbv ekrankopio.jpg. There were 3 authors on the talk page (as seen on the screenshot, so they are named in the file itself), but only the uploader is named as author of the file. That seems a bit strange to me. --Bjarlin (talk) 23:09, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

"Own work" is supposed to mean that the uploader created everything. In this case, the uploader only wrote one out of three comments, so "own work" looks wrong. All three of them should be indicated as co-authors, not just one of them. --Stefan2 (talk) 15:37, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for fixing, I didn't know that there also exists a Template:Wikipedia-screenshot. I think that it would have to be used for many more such Wikipedia screenshots. There are so many which have "own work", most of them are in the Category:Screenshots and its Wikipedia (and MediaWiki) subcategories. So there's very much wrong in this category that would need fixing of licences, authors and sources.

Here the uploader claims to be the author of this MediaWiki interface that he made a screenshot of and also wants to be named, although he didn't create anything else than the screenshot. Very strange.

Or this one: File:Wikipedia screen shot.jpg: A screenshot of a Persian Wikipedia page with "own work", I can't read this Persian text. What to do with it?

File:Wiki screen shot.png: A screenshot of the Upload Wizard (software photo) with Commons logo (no Wikipedia page, but MediaWiki and Upload Wizard software). Can't be own work either.

File:Screen shot of en.wiktionary entry محمد.png: A wiktionary screenshot, also with "own work" (I didn't research, if he really is the only author of the wiktionary entry).

And are those 4 files also cases for renames? The names are not very unique, there are many other wiki screenshots, so they don't describe the files very well. --Bjarlin (talk) 15:44, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

Unless those users wrote all of the text on the screenshots/created the MediaWiki interface, those files have incorrect copyright tags and list the incorrect authors. Unfortunately, many uploaders specify incorrect information when uploading Wikipedia screenshots. As for renaming of the files:

• "To do": Not very useful filename, but no one is using the file, so I nominated the file for deletion per COM:SCOPE. Should be renamed if kept.
• "Wikipedia screenshot": Not very useful filename. We have lots of Wikipedia screenshots, so it would be useful to be more specific. Should be renamed in my opinion.
• "Wiki screenshot": Even worse: the filename doesn't even tell which wiki it comes from. Nominated for deletion per COM:SCOPE.
• Wiktionary screenshot: Much better: the website and page are both named. Doesn't qualify for renaming in my opinion. --Stefan2 (talk) 00:01, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

The crosswiki uploads of Turkish Wikipedia have also a fair use problem. For example: File:Ekran Görüntüsü (29).png (name means "screenshot") is in use in the Turkish article tr:Fırıldak Ailesi. Maybe it has been there with a fair use licence as the other images of the article which have all fair use templates. Though they have fair use licences there, the uploader wrote "own work" here at his "Cross-wiki uploads from tr.wikipedia.org", as he also did for File:Illimünati.png, another screenshot from the internet out of another comic. --Bjarlin (talk) 00:41, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

That problem applies to cross-wiki uploads from many projects. I guess that new users see what files the local project uses and that some users do not understand that some files should be uploaded locally and tagged differently. --Stefan2 (talk) 15:37, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

I did only know that English WP has fair use files up to now (in the last days, there has been mentioned another wiki, but I don't know anymore which one). Is there a list anywhere, where the wikis are listed which use fair use files, so that it's possible to guess, if it could be such cases?

That they don't know and understand that local projects can host other files than here and that the different copyright laws and their mixture here are very hard to understand, that's clear. But I don't understand that users tag those fair use files as "own work" (pretending they made the photos or graphics themselves on their own and alone) instead of fair use as the other ones in those wikis. Everyone can see and know at once that fair use is not the same as "own work", so it's between not caring in any way about the licence (tagging the first licence they can get, giving a damn which one it is and what they are pretending with it, just clicking any buttons without reading anything) and wilfully lying just to get other people's work uploaded with their own name for use in any article. If people don't know and realize they're uploading something wrong or mistakenly take a wrong or not-at-all fitting licence or have complex licence issues to handle, that's another matter, this happens to everyone at some time or another, I think. But approving copyvios eventually just because of being unwilling to read anything or ask, that's not just missing understanding. By the way, this fair use practice is stupid IMHO. It encourages only many copyvios in other projects, especially here. --Bjarlin (talk) 19:06, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

Aninha 83: 4 crosswiki-uploads from pt: with historic photos and "own work". Has pt: also fair use files? Or have they been some PD-old licences before? --Bjarlin (talk) 19:42, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

See pt:WP:PID. For all projects, see m:Non-free content. Some projects have very restrictive exemption doctrine policies while other projects have more liberal policies. --Stefan2 (talk) 23:13, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing me to the page on Meta. It's about all non-free content, not just about the "fair use" policies. I thought that there maybe would be such a page about those "fair use" policies on Commons, not on Meta. :-) --Bjarlin (talk) 15:55, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

File:Los Angeles Fire Department seal.jpg

Hi, just wanted to point out the invalid license on this file that you moved from enwiki. It's not a work of the state of California as far as I know. It might possibly be PD for some other reason (if it's very old, etc), but this would take some research to determine. Otherwise, it might be better to put it back on enwiki under Fair Use or whatever... --Junkyardsparkle (talk) 22:36, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

• Why do you think that the copyright tag is invalid? w:Los Angeles Fire Department states that "The Los Angeles Fire Department is one of the largest municipal fire departments in the United States". The fire department seems to be a "local agency", as stated in the copyright tag. --Stefan2 (talk) 23:03, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

Not a state agency, it belongs to the City of Los Angeles and this is not covered by the tag. If the seal in the current form is very old it's likely PD-US.--Denniss (talk) 23:29, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

(To clarify, while local government bodies may be sub-units of larger ones in some places, this is not the case with cities in the state of California.) --Junkyardsparkle (talk) 00:33, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

The {{PD-CAGov}} template covers works by state agencies and by agencies of subdivisions such as counties and cities. That's why "local agencies" are mentioned in the first place. In particular, note that the court ruling mentioned in the template was about material created by a subdivision (a county). The template talk page mentions a different court ruling where a city was denied copyright protection per {{PD-CAGov}}. Compare with {{PD-FLGov}}. --Stefan2 (talk) 01:14, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

Interesting, I wasn't aware of the recent updates to the template. I'm not confident that this reading puts artistic works by anyone other than the State of California cleanly into the public domain (the precedents seem to be more about "public information"), but hey, if that's the current consensus on commons, so be it. --Junkyardsparkle (talk) 01:52, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

It's not a recent update. w:County of Santa Clara v. California First Amendment Coalition has been mentioned in the template since 2010. --Stefan2 (talk) 12:42, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

Yes, but that particular case study is about cities being barred from using copyright claims in order to prevent access to public data. Its use in claiming that the public domain release that the State of California applies to its own works is blanket applied to all works (say, a random photo on a city website with a clear notice of copyright) of individual cities is, frankly, a bit of a stretch. As far as I know, its not the opinion of the cities that this is the case, and I wouldn't personally be willing to be the test monkey in that experiment... but that's just my opinion. It'll be interesting to see how it plays out. --Junkyardsparkle (talk) 18:13, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

(I've left a comment at the template talk page, further discussion can take place there.) --Junkyardsparkle (talk) 19:35, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

Logos uploaded by User Cydets

Hi Stefan2, can you please take a look upon Commons:Deletion requests/Images uploaded by User Cydets. There is anything wrong the format, but I don't get it right. Or is it ok this way? Thanks in advance, it's really complicated to file a deletion request for more than one image at once. --Bjarlin (talk) 15:06, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

I don't understand, why the template on this page says that I should create that gallery page. That seems to be nonsense to me. Do you know, why a gallery page shall be needed for a deletion request? --Bjarlin (talk) 16:31, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

• I don't see any error. It doesn't seem to say that Images_uploaded_by_User_Cydets should be created. --Stefan2 (talk) 19:06, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Now it doesn't anymore, but here it said: "Add {{subst:delete-subst|REASON (mandatory)}} on the page", but the linked page doesn't exist yet. So it is right that it doesn't exist, even if it says, it shall exist? That seems a bit strange to me. Is the template wrong then or why did it say so? Also the link to the uploader went there, but there is no uploader on that non-existing page. So there must be something wrong, although the deletion request looks right now. I don't know, why there were two links to that not-existing gallery on that page. Maybe any template is wrong? --Bjarlin (talk) 22:06, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

{{DRbox2}} doesn't seem to be designed for deletion request subpages with non-standard page titles. --Stefan2 (talk) 22:45, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Which one is the standard deletion template then? I took the title that is the standard title of the Template:Delete (which seemed to be the standard deletion template and the only one I know except speedy delete): "Commons:Deletion requests/Images uploaded by User XYZ". Exactly that title with the user name. So why doesn't know the Template:DRbox2 the standard title of that template? It seems to me that I should create two new pages, but I have just created one of them, because the second one seemed to be wrong. I haven't seen, how such a second page could look like, because the "Nominate for deletion" button in the tools bar doesn't create such a page either AFAIK. That DRbox2 template says, Template:Delete2 shall be used. Is the Template:Delete the wrong template to use, if it doesn't do the right thing? How are you doing it? Template:Delete2 has no documentation at all and doesn't tell anything about a standard title. --Bjarlin (talk) 23:44, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Files uploaded by Anton Bob

Anton Bob uploaded some obvious copyvios which are newspaper articles of other people tagged as "own work". But he also uploaded other screenshots and other images. Could you take a look upon all his uploads, please? It's a bit difficult. For example:

• What's this: File:Jujols de 1974 à 1986.png? A book cover? Surely not own work.
• File:Capture d'ecran 2014-05-03 à 16.24.16.png: This png screenshot has no EXIF data, also not own work?
• File:La rue Belloc.jpg: old black-and-white photo, date is the date of the Photoshop changings, year of creation of the photograph is unknown, photographer is unclear.
• File:L'entrée du village (Le parking Robert).jpg: old photo of the 1970s/1980s(?), date is date of Photoshop changings.
• File:La tour 2.jpg: Another black-and-white photo, date is date of Photoshop changings.
• Others like this screenshot of 7 July 1986 are clearly not his own work, but just scans of newspaper articles.
• File:Capture d'ecran 2014-05-04 à 12.41.05.png: Text by René Grando, photos by Amado Jover, article date: 17 March 1977, so clearly all data is wrong (date is upload date) and the licence, too.
• File:Capture d'ecran 2014-05-04 à 12.42.11.png: Article of 1981, not own work.
• File:Capture d'ecran 2014-05-04 à 12.44.08.png: A letter by Yvon Lerol, mayor of Jujols, as of 23 January 1984, to the director of la SAFER is clearly not own work of the uploader.
• File:Capture d'ecran 2014-05-04 à 12.40.40.png: Article of August 1976, not the uploader's work.
• File:Capture d'ecran 2014-05-04 à 12.40.02.png: Article of Nov. 1975 by ALEN, not by Anton Bob.

What to do with those files or others? --Bjarlin (talk) 15:21, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

• I have tagged several of this uploader's files for deletion. Not sure what to do with the rest.

People who took photos in the 1970s and 1980s are often still alive, so an "own work" claim for a photograph from that period is sometimes valid. EXIF data will of course only contain information about the scanner and/or photo editing software. When a screenshot is marked as "own work", the source and authorship claims are questionable in my opinion.

EXIF is incompatible with the PNG file format. --Stefan2 (talk) 19:21, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

File:Tetra Tech logo.png

File:Tetra Tech logo.png has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry. If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue. Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

Kopiersperre (talk) 17:20, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Copyright question

Stefan2, there is an article for Henry Otis Dwight on English Wikipedia in need of a photograph. A photograph [9], dated circa 1880, can be found here [10]. The photo bears the mark, Osw. Welti Lausanne, (Osw.Welti studio of Lausanne, Switzerland). Question--Would that photo fall within Public Domain, and if so, is there a Public Domain License in Switzerland that permits uploading the photo to Commons? Thank You. Woodlot (talk) 14:26, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Accoring to the file name, the photograph was taken around 1875, but it says 1880 in the image caption on Wordpress. The main rule in Switzerland is that the copyright expires 70 years after the death of the photographer. If the photographer died before 1945, then the picture is in the public domain in Switzerland, and it is also in the public domain if the photographer is anonymous. If only one person worked for the Osw. Welti studio at that time, then the photographer would probably not count as anonymous. If multiple people worked for the studio, then it would probably count as anonymous. However, even if the photographer isn't anonymous, it is very unlikely that the photographer was still alive 65 or 70 years after the photograph was taken, so I think that the picture safely can be uploaded using the {{PD-old-70}} template. --Stefan2 (talk) 12:41, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

Thank You. Woodlot (talk) 13:03, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

Bonjour Stefen2,

J'ai reçu, il y a quelques jours, une notification de votre part et de Yann disant que j'avais téléchargé des images soumises au droit d'auteur (https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Anton_Bob#File:Capture_d.27ecran_2014-05-04_.C3.A0_12.44.08.png). N'ayant pas la possibilité de savoir quelles étaient ces images supprimées puisque, lorsque je clique sur le lien, je tombe sur une page où la discussion est close, je ne peux ni savoir si c'était une erreur de votre part ou si c'était une erreur de la mienne. Il me semble assez douteux que ces photos aient été soumises au droit d'auteur puisque la totalité des images que j'ai téléchargées sur la page de Jujols sont les miennes. Il se peut, néanmoins, que j'aie pu faire quelques erreurs. Ceci pour la forme.

Pour le fond, j'ai reçu votre notification de discussion... et, à peine une heure plus tard, une notification de suppression sans que j'aie pu comprendre ce qui se passait puisque je ne maîtrise pas le langage et les procédures compliquées de Wikipédia. De plus, la plupart des liens sur lesquels on clique pour pouvoir comprendre toutes les procédures sont en anglais que je ne maîtrise pas. J'ai été aidé, pour inclure les photos de Jujols il y a de cela deux ans, par un contributeur officiel dont je ne me souviens pas le nom et qui a supervisé la mise en page de ces photos. Je ne comprends pas que deux ans plus tard, ces photos ne soient pas les bonnes... sans qu'aucune discussion n'ait été possible. Vous êtes peut-être branché sur Internet 24 heures sur 24, ce qui n'est pas mon cas, et le délai d'une heure entre la notification de discussion et la notification de suppression me semble quelque peu cavalier... pour ne pas dire plus.

Aujourd'hui, je suis quelque peu échaudé d'avoir contribué à la page de Jujols en ayant passé énormément de temps à comprendre comment une contribution fonctionnait... le langage et les procédures Wikipédia étant extrêmement compliquées pour un béotien comme moi et à la limite du compréhensible. Aujourd'hui, ma contribution à Wikipédia n'est donc plus d'actualité. Ce qui n'est plus d'actualité non plus dorénavant, grâce à vous et à Yann, ce sont les dons que je fais à Wikipédia depuis des années, puisque, à la lumière de cette fâcheuse aventure qui ressemble à une censure mal maîtrisée et soumise à l'arbitraire, je considère que Wikipédia n'est plus fiable.

Le pompon, c'est quand même la dernière notification en fin de la page, je cite : Bonjour, Anton Bob, vous avez téléchargé plusieurs images qui enfreignent les droits d'auteur, ceci en dépit de nos rappels à l'ordre et de nos instructions. Si vous ne cessez pas de télécharger des images qui ne sont pas libres, votre compte sera bloqué.

Quels rappels à l'ordre ? Quelles instructions ?... "Si vous ne cesser..." alors je ne suis même pas allé sur la page en question depuis un an !!!... et, pour me remercier de ma contribution à la page de Jujols, la menace de bloquer mon compte !!! Or, je le répète, le problème n'est pas tant que j'ai pu peut-être faire une erreur due à une image ou deux dont j'ai fait, par facilité technique, une capture d'écran et qui ne puisse pas être contrôlée par rapport aux droits d'auteur, mais par le fait qu'aucune discussion n'ait été possible.

Alain ROBERT... Anton Bob — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anton Bob (talk • contribs) 2015-12-24T15:33:11 (UTC)

Il paraît que File:Jujols de 1974 à 1986.png est la couverture d'un livre et que les autres images supprimées sont des captures d'écran. File:Capture d'ecran 2014-05-04 à 12.44.08.png est un document écrit par Yvon Robert. Nous avons besoin d'autorisation de Yvon Robert et du photographe. Voyez COM:OTRS/fr pour la procédure. --Stefan2 (talk) 14:22, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

File:Allamanda cathartica - Kerala 2.jpg was deleted!!!

Hi,

Someone deleted the File:Allamanda cathartica - Kerala 2.jpg picture. But my sister already sent the permission for it. You told me two. So, why was the picture deleted? DenesFeri (talk) 10:14, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

RfC

Hi Stefan2. You have read (and edited) the draft RfC before and did not make any comment about it being unclear (even though I disagree). But now you do. To me, this is non-constructive and unfair. --Leyo 19:16, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

I discovered that the proposal was unclear when I read other people's comments about the proposal and didn't discover that the proposal could be interpreted in multiple ways before I saw those comments. --Stefan2 (talk) 23:31, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Every question may be misunderstood if someone wants to misunderstand it. Marcus does not like one aspect of the RfC, but decided to fight against the whole thing. Concerning your proposal of withdrawing the RfC and rewriting it: I think this could be heavily criticized by some user as “you withdraw it since you don't like the votes”. Moreover, it is not needed, because the few users who might potentially have misunderstood the question saw the addition on January 24 and could have changed their vote if need be. This also applies to you. --Leyo 13:48, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

File tagging File:Cityhall3.jpg

I, Nancy Wong, is the author and copyright holder who has agreed to license the file Cityhall3.jpg under the given license.

Thank you and please do not delete.

Nancy Wong aka Edmunddantes.

File tagging File:Cityhall3.jpg Беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | Català | Čeština | Dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | Ελληνικά | English | Español | فارسی | Suomi | Français | Galego | עברית | Hrvatski | Magyar | Հայերեն | Italiano | 日本語 | 한국어 | Lietuvių | Македонски | മലയാളം | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | Norsk bokmål | Polski | Português | Română | Русский | Sicilianu | Slovenčina | Slovenščina | Svenska | Türkçe | Українська | اردو | Tiếng Việt | 中文（简体）‎ | 中文（繁體）‎ | +/− Warning sign This media may be deleted. Thanks for uploading File:Cityhall3.jpg. This media is missing permission information. A source is given, but there is no proof that the author or copyright holder agreed to license the file under the given license. Please provide a link to an appropriate webpage with license information, or send an email with copy of a written permission to OTRS (permissions-commons@wikimedia.org). This also applies if you are the author yourself.

Please see this page for more information on how to confirm permission, and Commons:Permission if you would like to understand why we ask for permission when uploading work that is not your own.

Unless the permission information is given, the image may be deleted after seven days. Thank you.

Stefan2 (talk) 16:55, 25 January 2016 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment was added by 204.102.74.23 (talk) 18:14, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

CityHall3.jpg

"they are difficult to track and it is hard to tell what the image is about without actually looking at it. "

One should always look at an image to see what it is about. --Nancy Wong

Please give images better names

العربية | Deutsch | English | Español | Suomi | Français | עברית | Magyar | Italiano | 日本語 | Македонски | മലയാളം | Nederlands | Polski | Português | Русский | Sicilianu | +/−

I noticed you've uploaded File:Cityhall3.jpg and I thought I should draw your attention to a common error.

Please give uploaded images meaningful names. Otherwise they are difficult to track and it is hard to tell what the image is about without actually looking at it. I suggest you rename your image with an intuitive name that describes the image itself. Thanks, and happy editing!

Stefan2 (talk) 18:16, 25 January 2016 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment was added by 204.102.74.23 (talk) 18:33, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Have you ever been to Disneyland?

The Little Mermaid thing is a sculpture stuck onto a plastic marquee on the outside of a boxy building. It's definately copyright, not FOP:US... heads up on this whole Disney thing, it might be wise to err on the side of COM:PRP than to encourage the boundary-pushers. Ellin Beltz (talk) 07:52, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

In that case, it's probably not a part of the building. I think that the Leicester v. Warner Brothers case makes it difficult to understand what's building and what's sculpture, though. --Stefan2 (talk) 14:33, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Template: "Please give images better names"

Alligator in my plate

Hi there. It's so good you warned me about naming pictures. I did not know there was such a template. Now I can use this template with people who really do not care to put a meaningful name to their pictures. Have you bothered to check how many pictures I have asked to be renamed in Wikipedia, for not having meaningful names? Once I could not remember the name of the animal I pictured - or I was not sure if there were different animals in the picture- and called it "Animalia", weeks ago, and now my attention is being drawn... Have you also noticed how many pictures I loaded to Wikipedia? (No, I am not waiting for thanks, thank you.) This is the latest image I uploaded. I think for the first time in my WP experience I used a "really" fancy name. Take care. --E4024 (talk) 08:53, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

I think that's a useful template. The uploader, whether an experienced user or not, is the most likely user to know what the file displays and is often able to come up with a better file name, and the template may also have the effect that the uploader chooses better names in the future. --Stefan2 (talk) 14:38, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Commons bot inactivity

Hello! Your bot has been listed at Commons:Bots/Requests/de-flag 4 as being inactive for over two years. As a housekeeping measure we'd like to remove the bot flag from inactive bot accounts, unless you expect the bot will be operated again in the near future. If you consent to the removal of the bot flag (or do not reply on the deflag page) you can rerequest the bot flag at Commons:Bots/Requests should you need it again. Regards --Steinsplitter (talk) 17:55, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Wrong Licence

Stefan, I am aware that i uploaded under wrong licence type https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Logo-sigortacini.png this file However i am not able to remove it . Could you remove the file or change licence cc to trademark section.

File:Bone Univesity.png

Italiano: Mi potresti spiegare il motivo che secondo te viola la copyright?

--0 Noctis 0 (talk) 20:14, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

The image is a logo and there is no evidence that the university which created the logo has given any permission for the logo. --Stefan2 (talk) 21:31, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

Italiano: Non appartiene a una università reale ma immaginaria di un videogioco se osservavi a cosa era associato. vedi qui

--0 Noctis 0 (talk) 14:06, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Notification about possible deletion

Some contents have been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether they should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at their entry. If you created these pages, please note that the fact that they have been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with them. Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

Berörda filer:

• File:Man on Indian beach.jpg
• File:Navnirmaan meal.jpg
• File:Navnirmaan people.jpg
• File:Punarnirmaan politicians 2.jpg
• File:Ravulapalem children.jpg

—LX (talk, contribs) 11:01, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

Tack för att du upptäckte detta, LX. --Stefan2 (talk) 16:20, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

File:SantoTomas,Batangasjf0528 08.JPG

Overwritten, yes, but are you sure it's worth a split? The underlying image is really terrible.... it's so blurry it would likely get deleted anyhow, to be honest. Revent (talk) 19:31, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

• Hm. I guess I didn't see how blurry it was when I tagged the file. You can't see that from the thumbnail in the history. --Stefan2 (talk) 17:44, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

File:Kit body chi10a.png

I'm not really familiar with the whole 'football kit' thing, so I'm really not sure exactly how this should be split... I know there are naming conventions involved... if you could poke it at COM:HMS with a more specific request that would help avoid messing it up. Thanks. Revent (talk) 19:36, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

• I guess it should be split up in two files: [11] + [12] under one name and the other ones under another name. --Stefan2 (talk) 17:46, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Right, I more meant that I have no idea how to name the split out revisions so they would still 'work' in the infoboxes. Revent (talk) 19:59, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

w:Template:Football kit requires that all files are named File:Kit bodyXYZ.png where XYZ can be anything, I think. --Stefan2 (talk) 22:20, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

The version from 2011-02-01 (the one in the middle) appears to already exist separately at File:Kit body chi11a.png, so it's really just the ones with the 'curves', I guess. (argh) The people futzing with them never explained what they were doing, of course. Revent (talk) 20:10, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

This looks messy... --Stefan2 (talk) 22:20, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

User:Fastily

Just a heads up but there is little point in dumping a boat load of notices on his talk page seeing as he is no longer active. I thought you might have noticed that and anyway there is a notice at the top of his talk page too. Maybe this is a case of being bold and just doing it yourself seeing as you have "file mover" rights. Cheers Ww2censor (talk) 01:03, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

Fastily is inactive on Commons, but FastilyClone is not. It's sometimes difficult to come up with a good file name. For example, I had no idea what File:RAF.png and File:IKK.png showed until someone renamed them. --Stefan2 (talk) 01:12, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

That's true but the notices are no use on his talk page. Maybe you should consider letting someone else, or some group, know so someone can do something about them but not notifying Fastily, or just do nothing. Ww2censor (talk) 10:05, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

A person who uploads a file typically knows what he uploads, so notifying the uploader about bad file names seems to be a fast way to find a suitable filename for the file. --Stefan2 (talk) 13:09, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

copyrights

Alexandrosbouguereau (talk) 18:13, 7 March 2016 (UTC) Hello Stefan2, I have uploded some pictures of some paintings and you sent me a warning for deleting them due to copyright violation, i contacted the artist before uploading them and sked him if i could use some pictures from his website and he agreed. What should i do?

You have uploaded a couple of pictures from a website. You claim that they are freely licensed, but have not provided any evidence of this. You need to provide such evidence as stated in the template on your talk page. --Stefan2 (talk) 13:08, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

plz change the filename

Hi..ive added a permission on this file-

File:GetImage (2).jpg

. Is this permission good enough?

plz donot go on nominating my images for deletion ..plz talk to me first Peoplesecurity

See COM:FR#Which files should not be renamed? #4. You need to provide evidence of permission before the file will be renamed. --Stefan2 (talk) 21:04, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

alright... dont rename this file..but plz dont delete the images ive uploaded.. im going to add the below given permission on all the images..will it be good enough? PERMISSION- As mentioned on this link, photos featured on the FIVB Photo Galleries are downloadable copyright free for media purposes only, and only if FIVB is credited as the source material. Peoplesecurity

That page states that the file is available under a licence which is not acceptable on Commons. You need to provide evidence that the file is available under a licence which is acceptable on Commons. --Stefan2 (talk) 21:35, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

Sir, I think u r making an error of judgement. The above link clearly says that a lisence is needed for commercial purposes only. I'm not trying to do any commercial transaction (like trying to earn money for myself or for wikimedia) by uploading this image...so clearly no commercial purpose is involved here. The link states that for media purposes, no lisence is needed. And as its very name suggests, Wikimedia is also a type of media. In case u donot agree with me, I urge you to refer this matter to any other administrator of wikipedia/wikimedia. And in case u do agree with me, kindly remove the nomination for deletion of the images. Peoplesecurity (talk) 21:48, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

Files can only be uploaded to Commons if they can be used for any purpose. If a licence is restricted to 'media', then it typically means that you can't print the pictures on postcards or umbrellas. --Stefan2 (talk) 22:14, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

I still feel that u r doing an erroneous, narrow interpretation of rules. Is sending an email (with my above views mentioned in it), to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org the only option I have now? Peoplesecurity (talk) 23:12, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

Your only option is to ensure that the copyright holder sends an e-mail with a Commons-compatible permission statement to that e-mail address. The permission you have linked to is not a Commons-compatible permission statement, so it won't help you in any way. --Stefan2 (talk) 23:16, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

@Peoplesecurity: since you asked a second opinion, I agree with Stefan2. — Racconish^☎ 10:25, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

Tagging simple logos with

Why you're tagging files like this with {{wrong license}}. Should not be better to tag as {{PD-textlogo}} if actually bellow the TOO, or just nominate for deletion if actually above? --Amitie 10g (talk) 12:34, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

It's necessary to identify the country of the logo in order to retag it as {{PD-textlogo}} as different countries have different criteria. For example, File:Undertale cover.jpg is ineligible for copyright in the United States because lettering is ineligible for copyright in the United States regardless of whether the lettering satisfies the originality criterion or not. The article w:Undertale does not identify a country of origin (at least not in the lead section). The file was nominated for deletion by Jo-Jo Eumerus, who mentioned Danish law. Danish law does not have a general ban on copyright protection of lettering but uses the standard originality criteron, as illustrated by this case where three fonts were declared ineligible for copyright protection while two other fonts were declared eligible for copyright protection, so it is possible that the logo is copyrighted in Denmark (I have not seen the two fonts which are not available on Commons). I don't know if Denmark is the source country or not, but I see that this has been disputed by you in the deletion discussion. Besides, I think that it is more educating for the uploader if the uploader is asked to fix the copyright tag himself. Otherwise, the same uploader might continue to upload files with obviously incorrect copyright tags. --Stefan2 (talk) 12:56, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

File:Overview of the NEOS Server.jpg

Hi. When transferring old versions of images, please keep licenses in mind.[13] Thanks. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 00:56, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Hm. In this case, it seems that the file was uploaded to both projects by the same user, so all licences are valid. Also, unless I'm missing something, the old revisions are only low-resolution copies of the same file (+ red annotations created by a dictionary which do not meet the threshold of originality and some unnecessary whitespace which also doesn't meet the threshold of originality), so there does not seem to be any additional copyright in the old revisions which is not covered by the copyright to the larger copy, so the Commons licence seems to apply in full to all revisions of the file. In this case, it seems that the file can be listed under either the Wikipedia licences or the Commons licence. --Stefan2 (talk) 12:42, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Copyrigt problems

Hi Stefan, I received a new warning from you, about the use of different national ID cards, for educational and information purpose. I have to say that my intention wasn't to be against the copyright laws. Plus, those documents are Specimen cards, and theire use is widely done on the internet. Here are the links of those images, from the EU council website: http://www.consilium.europa.eu/prado/en/search-by-document-country.html (Which I used in 99 % of the cases):

LUX: http://www.consilium.europa.eu/prado/en/8183/index.html CHE: http://www.consilium.europa.eu/prado/en/prado-documents/che/b/index.html, http://www.delcampe.net/page/item/id,196769138,var,Swiss-passport-pasaporte-Suizo-passeport-Suisse-reisepass-Schweizerpass-2008,language,E.html LTU: http://www.consilium.europa.eu/prado/en/3426/index.html (First Speciment Model), http://www.irishcentral.com/culture/travel/Irish-Passport-Card-launched-for-citizens-of-Ireland-worldwide.html (Second Specimen Model) IRL: http://www.consilium.europa.eu/prado/en/prado-documents/irl/t/index.html, NLD: http://www.consilium.europa.eu/prado/en/prado-documents/nld/b/index.html GBR/Colony of Gibraltar: https://www.gibraltar.gov.gi/new/id-cards-civilian-registration-cards, http://www.gibnet.com/media/idcard.htm MLT: http://www.consilium.europa.eu/prado/en/prado-documents/mlt/b/index.html (Old Model), https://investinginyourfuture.gov.mt/project/public-administration/e-services-accessibility-for-all-37060616?lang=mt SVN: http://www.consilium.europa.eu/prado/en/5713/index.html FRA: http://www.consilium.europa.eu/prado/en/prado-documents/fra/b/index.html ESP: http://www.consilium.europa.eu/prado/en/prado-documents/esp/b/index.html SWE: http://www.consilium.europa.eu/prado/en/5713/index.html The majority of the EU national ID cards are coming from this page on Wikipedia.

For the Bhutanese national ID card, I'm sorry, but I don't remeber the link of the picture, but it took me one day to find a proper Bhutanese national ID card. Once found, I, of course, hided the names and information of the holder. For the new DNI (Spanish national ID card), the picture comes from one of my class friends, who agreed me to post it on internet. If you need more inforlation about him, don't hesitate to ask me.

I really hope Wikimedia commons is not going to delete all the pictures I uploaded recently. It took a lot of time and effort, and my aim was to help the EU national ID cards page on Wikipedia, not to break the law. Once again, I really want to apologise if I did a mistake! Yours sincerly Gregori (gregori-luxair)

The consilium.europa.eu website doesn't belong to the copyright holders and doesn't contain any evidence of permission from the copyright holders. --Stefan2 (talk) 09:51, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

Hello again Stefan2, This is what i found about copyright rules on the consilium.europa.eu I would like to also add that you can also see the same permission on the wiki page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_identity_cards_in_the_European_Economic_Area © European Communities, 2008-2012 Reproduction is authorised, provided the source is acknowledged, unless otherwise stated. Where prior permission must be obtained for the reproduction or use of textual and multimedia information (sound, images, software, etc.), such permission shall cancel the abovementioned general permission and shall clearly indicate any restrictions on use. I really hope it will help the decision of not deleting all the EU national ID cards I recently uploaded. Once again I apologize if I did it wrong. Yours sincerly, Gregori (gregori-luxair)

The copyright holder is not the European Communities, so that permission is invalid. Besides, it only covers reproduction but not modification, see {{nonderivative}}. --Stefan2 (talk) 17:19, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

So, how should I do to solve this problem and find a permission? I also contacted by email the Council of the EU to get informations about future uploads. Gregori (gregori-luxair) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gregori-luxair (talk • contribs) 2016-04-11T17:33:23 (UTC)

Since the copyright isn't held by the European Union, you won't be able to get any help from the European Union. You need to ensure that the copyright holders comply with the process described at COM:OTRS. --Stefan2 (talk) 17:43, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

More

i understand what do you mean but "More" is the italian name for "Blackberries" (maybe is more specific Rubus ulmifolius) Assianir (talk) 06:52, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Hm, I didn't realise that. I thought that it was the English word 'more' which didn't seem very descriptive. --Stefan2 (talk) 11:30, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Chairs

Hi Stefan2,

I came across one of your comments regarding the copyright of chairs. Not sure if you are interested but perhaps you find this interesting to read. If you are not interested, than I apologise for the inconvenience. Natuur12 (talk) 15:43, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

Natuur12, that's interesting! The company behind that high chair has sued lots of chair manufacturers in lots of countries. It's important for Commons to document both when something is copyrighted and when something is an infringement of copyright, and these two rulings may be useful. --Stefan2 (talk) 11:46, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

User:Handcuffed

Found some possible problems with thisd users uploads..- https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:ListFiles&offset=20120115050239&user=Handcuffed

Many of the images are NSFW, but that's not why I am asking you to take a look. I've noted some potential copyright issues with some of the images (mostly to do with watermarks, or a unverifiable source.) at Deletion requests already. The one image I have nominated on NSFW grounds is because I felt it was possible to document the intended subject in a less explicit manner. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 10:44, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

ShakespeareFan00, I see that you have nominated a few files for deletion. I took a quick look at some of the deletion requests and commented on one. I see that the user has uploaded images from lots of different sources (for example, multiple Flickr accounts). I'll try to take a closer look at in particular the deletion requests you started in a few days. I'll be a bit busy with other things this weekend. --Stefan2 (talk) 11:58, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Wiki Photo Tours Nigeria

Dear @Stefan2:, we need your assistance in clarifying the right license to be used by our community for the above mentioned project. All the images in the project were snapped by just two photographers. However, we noticed the volume involved will be too much for two persons to upload. Also, since its a community work all the members should join in doing it. Without violating any Copyright issues what can we do that.Olaniyan Olushola (talk) 06:06, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Mirage.jpg

Greetings: I believed at the time I closed the above request that all the files were a problem; apparently I misunderstood your Deletion Nomination. Would it be possible for you to take this to COM:UNDEL purely on a procedural basis so that another set of eyes takes one more look at this large pile of uploads? Thank you !! Ellin Beltz (talk) 02:40, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Comment by User:109.238.239.204

მოდი იდი ნახუი და ერთი შენი კეთილებშიც შევეცი — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.238.239.204 (talk • contribs) 2016-05-23T08:00:55‎ (UTC)

Sorry, I don't understand what this means. Google translates it as Come Yiddish Nahum and one of your ketilebshi shevetsi, which doesn't make any sense to me. --Stefan2 (talk) 08:24, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

PD-1996

Hello! May you explain me the reason for this? According to what did you edit the license's text? If I could understand better the situation, I could translate the Italian version. --Horcrux92 (talk) 14:50, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

See discussion at Template talk:PD-1996#Is it "and" or is "or" and when should it be published? The template didn't correctly describe the issues at Commons:Subsisting copyright. --Stefan2 (talk) 14:53, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

Vector logos

Hi Stefan2. Thank you for your response at Commons:Village pump/Copyright/Archive/2016/06#Vector logos. Do you feel those two particular files are own work? They look more like non-free logos to me, but I wasn't sure because the file's description claims they are own work vector logos. -- Marchjuly (talk) 12:24, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

It's possible that these are based on textual descriptions in which case the own work claims may be correct, see COM:COA#Copyright on the representation. It's also possible that they have been downloaded from some website, in which case the own work claims are wrong. Can you find earlier copies of the same drawings elsewhere on the Internet? --Stefan2 (talk) 21:33, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

Request to undelete a file

Hello,

On May 18 you (correctly) deleted a photo from Flickr that I uploaded. I have since asked the photo author to change the license, which she has. Could you please undelete the file?

https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:CLIL_workshop_exercise.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1

Thank you in advance,

Jshnay (talk) 11:35, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

Mass deletion question

Hi Stefan2. I saw you made this edit to a deletion request I made. Can I remove this template markup from now on after I've completed all the steps? I wasn't sure, so I've just left the template alone in previous requests. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:48, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

That markup is there to help you remembering all steps. It is not required to include that template on the page. --Stefan2 (talk) 09:12, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

Caribbean visa image

He Stefan,

I am sorry to bother you so long after, but over year ago, you nominated File:VisumKonderNedCaribischGebied.png for deletion stating that the copyright tag used was not ok. There was no further discussion and the image was deleted by user:INeverCry. I have asked him to look into the deleted file in order to re-assess whether the deletion was required.

• The image was found at the Dutch legislation website wetten.nl as part of the "Regeling Toelating", a piece of secondary legislation.
• Deletion discussion was at Commons:Deletion requests/File:VisumKonderNedCaribischGebied.png
• The tag was template:PD-NL-Gov/nl, to be used for all works made by or on behalf of the Government (Article 15 Copyright Act).
• In case of legislation, both Article 11 (all laws and directives are copyright free) and Article 15b of the Dutch Copyright Act are legal basis to consider it copyright free

Based on this info I'd say this image is free of copyright because it is part of legislation. Would you based on this reconsider your view on the matter; or indicate where in your view this evaluation is incorrect? L.tak (talk) 19:33, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

File:Wolverhampton Art Gallery 3.jpg

File:Wolverhampton Art Gallery 3.jpg has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry. If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue. Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

Kelly (talk) 10:29, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

File source is not properly indicated: File:1792 dime.jpg

This media was probably deleted.

A file that you have uploaded to Wikimedia Commons, File:1792 dime.jpg, was missing information about where it comes from or who created it, which is needed to verify its copyright status. The file probably has been deleted. If you've got all required information, request undeletion providing this information and the link to the concerned file ([[:File:1792 dime.jpg]]). If you created the content yourself, enter {{own}} as the source. If you did not add a licensing template, you must add one. You may use, for example, {{self|GFDL|cc-by-sa-all}} or {{Cc-zero}} to release certain rights to your work. If someone else created the content, or if it is based on someone else's work, the source should be the address to the web page where you found it, the name and ISBN of the book you scanned it from, or similar. You should also name the author, provide verifiable information to show that the content is in the public domain or has been published under a free license by its author, and add an appropriate template identifying the public domain or licensing status, if you have not already done so. Please add the required information for this and other files you have uploaded before adding more files. If you need assistance, please ask at the help desk. Thank you!

Jcb (talk) 20:24, 26 August 2016 (UTC)