User talk:Stefan2/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

User:Kawaeee1975

Can you please explain to this user to provide a proper source and license for all his/her uploads? I marked three of them, which the user appears to have fixed via IP editing (File:Chambon Jean Alexiis.jpeg‎, File:Hermann Hoffmann.jpeg‎, File:Germain Leger Testvuide.jpeg‎), but there are many more, and there appears to be a language barrier problem between him/her and me. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 14:29, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

The photos are messy. The black and white ones are all in the public domain in Japan per {{PD-Japan-oldphoto}}, but I'm questioning whether Japan really is the source country for all of them. I was able to clean up several photos but asked the user about two of them. One may be American and one may be German. --Stefan4 (talk) 22:14, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

We need to know the original publication to know that any of them are Japan old-photo. Who's to say they weren't published abroad first? That's the reason why we require a source for every image. And "old photo" is not a source at all. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 22:32, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

It seems that many of the photos must have been taken in Japan. For example, File:Takagi-jinzaburou1.jpeg shows a person (ja:高木甚三郎) who lived in Japan. We also have File:Osouf pierre marie.jpeg showing fr:Pierre-Marie Osouf, who seems to have lived most of his later life in Japan where he became the archbishop of Tokyo. It would seem that the photo either was taken in Japan or before the mid-1870s (although it says that the man spent a year in the US after that). If it was taken before the mid-1870s, then it should be in the public domain everywhere in the world.

I think that we mainly have the problem discussed in w:Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2013 April 20#File:Liverpool District Hospital 1918.tif. This is a problem with thousands of files, and is better handled in a more central discussion. For example, most of the files with {{PD-Australia}} or {{PD-Canada}} do not contain any evidence whatsoever that they were first published in Australia or Canada, respectively. I think that it would be better to know where the photos were first published, but this isn't really what we seem to be requiring for photos with {{PD-Australia}} or {{PD-Canada}}. --Stefan4 (talk) 13:30, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

I don't see much of a need for a centralized discussion at all. Wikimedia already has a policy that all files must be sourced, unless they are PD-simple. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 22:22, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

I also agree that all files need a proper source, but that's not what people thought in the deletion discussion on Wikipedia. I'm currently in a dispute about a similar matter at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Aurora moored to the ice.jpg about a photo by an Australian photographer from the early 20th century which is sourced to a contemporary British book.

Worse, though: The user isn't responding at all. --Stefan4 (talk) 13:57, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Also, may I recommend page archiving? The large size of your talk page is causing Mediawiki to take a long time to render the page, and it takes a long time to load it. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 22:24, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

verassing → verrassing

Thank you, Stefan4, for renaming these four files.

Three of them are not used; I remember that with certainty.

One of them (File:Prinses Laurentien verassingsbezoek aan basisschool De Startbaan (1) cropped.jpg) was used in several countries and I intended to correct all these links after renaming.

Unfortunately, the old file name (now a redirect) does not show in which countries it is used. I traced (and corrected) four of them, but from memory I would say there were more than four. If I had known that this information would disappear, I would have made a manual note of the references.

Can you find out which articles in which countries still refer to the wrong name? Or is that information destroyed even for administrators (or whatever) such as you?

Thanks and regards, Vinkje83 (talk) 16:49, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

When I renamed the file, I added the file name to a page instructing User:CommonsDelinker to update the file name on every page on which the file was used (diff). It seems that you updated the file name everywhere in the meantime, so in the end there was nothing left for the bot to do. Special:GlobalUsage/File:Prinses Laurentien verassingsbezoek aan basisschool De Startbaan (1) cropped.jpg tells that the old file name isn't used anywhere on any Wikimedia project. The old file name could potentially be used somewhere outside Wikimedia (for example using mw:InstantCommons), but there is no way to check that. The redirect should help any other websites using the old file name. --Stefan4 (talk) 17:03, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing out "Special:GlobalUsage" to me. Very useful. I did not know it existed.

You applied that function with File: prefix, and that seems to be the wrong way to do it. I applied the function without File: and it showed one remaining reference (which I repaired, of course).

Thanks and greetings, Vinkje83 (talk) 17:49, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Advice needed

Stefan would you be kind enough to look at my post here and see if I've anything to worry about? Many thanks in advance. SonofSetanta (talk) 11:51, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

OTRS tickets are normally added by OTRS members. If a {{PermissionOTRS}} tag is added by someone else, then this could mean that the tag is wrong, either intentionally or by mistake. For example, new users might copy sample code from another page and might not understand what the OTRS tag means and might therefore insert an unrelated OTRS tag for another file. I would assume that OTRS members regularly check the files tagged with "OTRS permission added by non-OTRS member" to see if something is wrong with them. If nothing is wrong with the OTRS ticket, then I would assume that nothing needs to be done. --Stefan4 (talk) 14:48, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Ok that's great, thanks. As the ticket was a copy and paste I know it's the correct one so I've nothing to worry about. I won't be getting blocked because of it anyway. SonofSetanta (talk) 14:56, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

No longer valid?

I don't understand why this is not a valid target for a rename when the same argument was valid for the corresponding TIFF? Perhaps you can explain it to me instead of silently failing it? Maury Markowitz (talk) 12:17, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

The file name is wrong. Can you provide the correct file name? --Stefan4 (talk) 14:34, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

this extremely long incorrectly bot-created name cannot be cut and pasted correctly, as occurred above, which is precisely why it should be changed. Maury Markowitz (talk) 13:20, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

The link is still not correct. Please specify which file you mean. --Stefan4 (talk) 13:34, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Deletion request for files in Category:Logos of Eurovision that uses the Eurovision heart

Hello Stefan4, As you have previously participated in a discussion regarding deletion Eurovision Song Contest logos, I would like to direct your attention to Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Logos of Eurovision, where a discussion regarding deletion of 79 logo files are taking place and I would also like to encourage you to participate in said discussion, so we may all benefit from what-ever knowledge and experience, you may have gained during the last discussion. In kind regards, --heb [T C E] 13:36, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Photographic works in Sweden

Hi Stefan, I would be glad if you could comment at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Computed tomography of human brain - large.png. Thanks in advance. -- Rillke^(q?) 19:33, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Thank you. -- Rillke^(q?) 06:05, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Hi Stefan4, as you seem to be Swedish-native, could you eventually ask at :sv-Wikipedia if there is some legal expertise about the copyright-status of x-ray images? --Túrelio (talk) 12:08, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Adminship

Hey Stefan4, I know I've asked this question before, but am doing to ask it again, when do you think you will be ready for an RFA here on Commons? I think you'd make a fine admin, and are always active and ready to help editors, and have a sound knowledge of copyright issues, etc. What do you think? russavia (talk) 03:00, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Uh oh. Once Russavia recommends someone for adminship, he won't let the matter go without a fight. In all seriousness, I think you would make a good administrator as well. Your humility fights against you, but I think it would be for the better. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 04:12, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Declined per the law (1998:112) about responsibility for bulletin board systems and COM:PRP. Under the law, anyone who provides a bulletin board system is required to patrol it and delete material which violates various laws, for example copyright violations, hate speech and child pornography. Commons is a bulletin board system according to the Swedish law, despite the article w:Bulletin board system suggesting that a bulletin board system is something different.

Under the w:DMCA, the responsibility to remove copyright violations is held by the one who provides the hardware and Internet connection (for example the Wikimedia Foundation), but the Swedish law explicitly exempts people who only provide background infrastructure. See for example NJA 2007 p. 805 where the administrator of a website refused to remove hate speech. That person designed the website and is listed as owner of the domain name according to a w:WHOIS lookup, but it looks as if the server currently is located in Denmark, so it seems that the hardware & Internet connection are provided by someone else. A person had used the website's guest book section to post messages supporting execution of homosexuals due to their "sins" with reference to the Bible and to God. The court found that this administrator was responsible for removing material, but didn't charge him for violation of this law due to an exemption in the law: if you can be charged for violation of certain more serious laws, then you should be charged for violating those other laws instead.

Under the Swedish law, I suspect that Commons users with access to the delete button might be responsible for deleting obvious violations upon finding them or risk facing legal charges in Sweden. Commons hosts several files which violate the Swedish copyright law, for example most files in Category:PD Art and various works created by EU citizens but first published outside Sweden, for example most photos in Category:PD Italy (20 years after creation) taken since 1973. The rule of the shorter term doesn't apply to works made by EEA citizens.

The law only requires deletion of obvious violations, the reason for this being that sysops shouldn't have to make judgements about complex legal situations (see proposition 1997/98:15 p.17). Examples of non-obvious cases are probably photos in Category:PD Italy (20 years after creation) which were taken after 1968 but before 1973: Sweden was not yet part of the EEA when the copyright expired in Italy, so the copyright expired in Sweden at that point under the rule of the shorter term, and it's not clear if the copyright ever was restored. I also would suspect that a violation isn't obvious in a lot of cases where files are missing essential information, but that they would become obvious violations if the missing essential information is provided, in particular if the information is provided by posting it to my talk page. The Swedish law pays no attention to the server location.

Due to these legal concerns, I am not sure if it would be safe to have access to a delete button on a project which officially hosts material which is illegal in Sweden. --Stefan4 (talk) 14:58, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

And this is why you'd make a great admin, as you have an understanding of the relevant laws LOL russavia (talk) 16:13, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

This is a great time to rant about the inappropriateness of hate speech laws, how they usually become ways for people to force their political orthodoxy on everyone else. I could write a novel on your talk page about it, but won't. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 23:17, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Boney James photo

Main gallery: File:Boney James 2013.jpg.

I am the artist. please leave the photo alone. thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Barneyjones (talk • contribs) 2013-09-17T20:54:49 (UTC)

Could you follow the instructions at COM:OTRS and send evidence that you are the photographer? --Stefan4 (talk) 15:12, 18 September 2013 (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, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues. 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!

Affected:

• File:Bendale_BTI_2.jpg

Yours sincerely, Prades (talk) 13:24, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

I removed the file from the list at Commons:Deletion requests/Files on User talk:Stefan4 as you didn't specify any reason for deletion and as the reason specified in the deletion nomination obviously doesn't apply to this image. --Stefan4 (talk) 13:40, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Stefan4...

Main gallery: COM:AN/U#Stefan4....

Main gallery: COM:LT#Stefan4 tiene una actitud un tanto discutible..

Quan tingui temps miraré les teves fotos una per una... Prades (talk) 15:39, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

Helping

fix fix. Today, I made Commons a little bit better by helping someone who had never created a Commons RFC. How about you? Colin (talk) 13:31, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

I hoped that telling him to do it himself would help him finding out how to do if he ever needs to start an RfC again. --Stefan4 (talk) 14:18, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Then you could have used this user talk page. Colin (talk) 14:26, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Yes, sorry. --Stefan4 (talk) 14:49, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Skydd för foto av foto

Hej! Jag lade upp en fråga på bybrunnen om upphovsrätt till reprofoton. På File:Lingonuppköpare.jpg har jag lagt till ett citat ur SOU 1956:25 som jag uppfattar avgör frågan om huruvida det finns något skydd för reprofoton i svensk rätt. Jag är intresserad av din uppfattning. Frågan gäller även skyddet för fotografiska kopior av text och ritningar enligt samma källa och sida. Vänligen Edaen (talk) 08:15, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Detta låter intressant. Jag försöker ta mig en titt på vad det står mer i utredningen när jag kommer hem ikväll. --Stefan4 (talk) 14:55, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

File:Drukar mogila.JPG

Please check this picture. I put PD-trivial or PD-text after discussion on Commons:Help desk#File:Drukar mogila.JPG. Hunu (talk) 14:05, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

{{PD-text}} and {{PD-trivial}} only refer to the stone, which means that it is permitted to take photos of the stone. A copyright tag is needed for the photo of the stone. --Stefan4 (talk) 14:25, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

OK. It was consensus decision on Commons:Help desk#File:Drukar mogila.JPG page. If you are not agree you could discuss it. Hunu (talk) 17:36, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

The consensus was that the stone satisfies {{PD-text}}. However, you didn't upload the stone, but a photo of the stone. --Stefan4 (talk) 20:56, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Nobody able "to upload the stone", everybody uploads only photos, drawings etc. If you are not agree let it discuss the question publicly, but please first to delete No license Sincerely Hunu (talk) 08:38, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Images

Thanks for your notice! I have responded on the bottom of this page. Please review these pictures again. Thank you for your time and care! --Wildcursive (talk) 12:43, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

I have replied your concern. Thanks!--Wildcursive (talk) 02:03, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Image deleted

Main gallery: File:Rubik's Cube and manual 2013-09-21 22-01.jpg.

Curious to know why my picture was deleted, it was a photograph of something I own, taken by me. It wasn't very good anyway, I just want to know incase I upload any more photos in the future. Thanks NemesisAT (talk) 21:03, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

The manual wasn't created by you but by someone else. You can't take photos of other people's creations. The cube isn't protected by copyright, so it is fine to take photos of the cube. --Stefan4 (talk) 21:47, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

Hello, Stefan2. You have new messages at ITeachThem's talk page. You may remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by PanchoS

Hi Stefan,
note that in order not to mix up unrelated discussions, I split the SYRIZA flags case off Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by PanchoS to a separate Commons:Deletion requests/File:SYRIZA logo 2009.svg. I responded there. Regards, --PanchoS (talk) 02:13, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

File:Yea! Gelato brand.jpg

Really curious about why you deleted a photo that was my own work and provided under a free CC license. Magicartpro (talk) 01:09, 23 October 2013 (UTC) Nevermind. Magicartpro (talk) 01:23, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

See COM:PACKAGING: the photo shows product packaging which you didn't create yourself. --Stefan4 (talk) 10:08, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Re: Commons:Deletion requests/File:Juegoscommonwealth.png

OK, I understand. However, I have a question: do you know about a free alternative to that image?--Continentalis (talk) 16:32, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

No. --Stefan4 (talk) 16:33, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/PAHMC

Can you please explain to me how casting a marker and planting it into the ground doesn't constitute "publication"? I don't see how that works.--GrapedApe (talk) 04:03, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

See s:United States Code/Title 17/Chapter 1/Section 101:

‘‘Publication’’ is the distribution of copies or phonorecords of a work to the public by sale or other transfer of ownership, or by rental, lease, or lending. The offering to distribute copies or phonorecords to a group of persons for purposes of further distribution, public performance, or public display, constitutes publication. A public performance or display of a work does not of itself constitute publication.

Copies of the markers have not been sold to the public, unless you can buy your own copy of the markers in a shop somewhere. Compare also with similar definitions in the Berne Convention and the Swedish copyright law:

(3) The expression "published works" means works published with the consent of their authors, whatever may be the means of manufacture of the copies, provided that the availability of such copies has been such as to satisfy the reasonable requirements of the public, having regard to the nature of the work. The performance of a dramatic, dramatico-musical, cinematographic or musical work, the public recitation of a literary work, the communication by wire or the broadcasting of literary or artistic works, the exhibition of a work of art and the construction of a work of architecture shall not constitute publication

— Article 3 (3) of the Berne Convention

Av utredningen i målet framgår att J.R. endast sålt fotografierna till Q houses och åtgärden att lägga ut dem på Q-houses webbsida är, som framgår ovan, att anse som överföring till allmänheten. Något som tyder på att hans avsikt med utläggandet har varit annat än att fullgöra sitt åtagande gentemot Q-houses är inte visat i målet. Under dessa omständigheter kan inte fotografierna anses utgivna i upphovsrättslagens mening.

— NJA 2010 p. 135

In the Swedish court ruling, the court decided that two photos which had been uploaded to a website were "unpublished".

The definition of "publication" in the US law was added in 1978. Before that, the law didn't contain any definition of "publication", so the courts created their own definition. Under that definition, a work was typically "published" if it was possible for the general public to create copies of the work. There seem to be two court rulings which discuss this issue:

• s:American Tobacco Co. v. Werckmeister: A painting was exhibited at a museum which was open to the general public, but photography was prohibited. As copies couldn't be created of the painting, the painting was unpublished.
• s:Letter Edged in Black Press, Inc. v. Public Building Commission of Chicago: A statue was exhibited outdoors in Chicago and photography was permitted. As copies could be created by taking a photo of the statue, the statue was published.

Commons has so far assumed that the pre-1978 definition should be used for acts which occurred before 1978 and that the post-1977 definition should be used for acts which occurred after 1977. See also the page Commons:Public art and copyrights in the US which explains this in detail. --Stefan4 (talk) 12:44, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

• • Huh. That is very strange. Thanks for the explanation!--GrapedApe (talk) 03:08, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Dutch government license

Hi Stefan4,

Why you removed previous license? Kind regards from ex Corporal (conscription March 1977 — Apeil 1978),  Klaas|Z4␟V:  10:13, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

I didn't remove it. I only corrected the syntax. {{PD-NL-Gov}} was recently found to be invalid (see Commons:Deletion requests/Template:PD-NL-Gov/en). Unless you find a different copyright tag, the file will probably be deleted. --Stefan4 (talk) 15:45, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

DR

Another DR regarding Australian content has been initiated on the basis of the Aboriginal flag case. As many of these are simple geometry on or below the same level as the Aboriginal flag, I would appreciate if you would add your opinion in the DR. Fry1989 ^eh? 04:18, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

As a first measure, I think that we should begin by categorising all Australian TOO-related deletion requests in a subcategory to Category:Threshold of originality related deletion requests. If we can later show that the application of the originality criterion "is out of line with the understanding of copyright law over many years" (High Court of Australia, 2009), it will be easier to find files to take to COM:UR.

I have found some interesting documents and court rulings, but they all relate to compilations and the exact impact on the originality for artistic works is unclear. I think that one very good example is the treatment of telephone directories: they were found to be copyrightable in one court ruling, but this was overturned some time after the IceTV v. Nine case. I think that I linked to those two telephone directory court rulings in a recent deletion request.

Another court ruling of interest may be Dynamic Supplies Pty Limited v Tonnex International Pty Limited (summary), but I have so far only read the summary. This case might not be too different to the Swedish nummerbanken case (NJA 1995 p. 256), where a database of product numbers was found to be a copyrighted literary work.

You get quite a lot of hits if you search for "IceTV" and "originality" on Google, but it is hard to extract the relevant information from the loads of hits. I have found some research by legal scholars ([1], [2]), which might be worth reading. I plan to comment on the deletion discussion you mentioned, but I would like to read more of the text in the documents I have found first. --Stefan4 (talk) 22:14, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

FYI

Commons:Undeletion_requests/Current_requests#Discussion_on_signs Evrik (talk) 21:31, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

File:Wiese bei Irgesdorf (1).JPG

File:Wiese bei Irgesdorf (1).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 see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues. 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!

Fiver, der Hellseher (talk) 22:49, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Bliss-Carman.gif

I got your message about the file Bliss-Carman.gif in my e-mail. As I understand it, it has to do with a file I uploaded to Wikipedia two years ago. As you probably know, I am prevented from replying to you there, or from adding any information to the file's description page, even if I wanted to. However, since the .gif is identical to that of File:Bliss-carman-1916.gif File:Bliss-carman-1916.gif, which was added to Wikimedia Commons roughly a year ago, I don't think it's important enough to justify the time already spent on it. Delete it if you feel like it. George Dance (talk) 06:30, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

This seems to be about w:File:Bliss-carman.gif. The file was deleted by User:Diannaa as unsourced. This probably means that you failed to specify where the image came from, making it impossible to determine the copyright status of the image. If it is the same photo as File:Bliss-carman-1916.gif, it could in principle be restored, but if it is too similar, it would not be worth the trouble to do so. --Stefan4 (talk) 18:51, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

Agreed; the two files are identical, so there's no loss in deleting the one without source information. My main reason for writing you was to let you know that I can't reply on Wikipedia to messages posted on my talk page there. My page here is fine, at least for now. George Dance (talk) 20:23, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

Deletion requests/Files on File:Bus carrying evacuees into the United States Embassy in Saigon 29 April 1975.jpg

Thanks for your message. I have no idea what Corbis photo or Flickrwashing means, but I can made an explanation for uploading two photos. First, I uploaded the former file, but didn't see the photo showed up and wondering whether it was a failure, so I made the second upload of the latter, not knowing that the Flickr upload bot didn't finish its work for the former. After learning the mistake, I put a template, {{Delete}}, on the latter and ask for deletion. It is not a duplicate of the former file. Second, on the lower right of the original file page on Flickr is a link to this page, seems that it match the condition of "Some rights reserved", which is allowed to be uploaded to Wikimedia.

After all, sorry for not being able to express my meaning well in English, I'm not so good at that. Howard61313 (talk) 02:57, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

See the reply at Commons:Deletion requests/Files on File:Bus carrying evacuees into the United States Embassy in Saigon 29 April 1975.jpg. --Stefan4 (talk) 16:23, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Photo of Brussels Philharmonic

Hello Stefan,

I wrote on your Stefan2 page 2 minutes ago, regarding the same picture. Waiting for your advice, I'm getting lost here!

Thank you

Giuliettadp (talk) 09:28, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

See w:User talk:Stefan2#Photo of Brussels Philharmonic. --Stefan4 (talk) 16:25, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

File:Euro coins common side (reverse) AB.jpg

Can you give me a direct link to administrative/law regulations, that say it is forbidden to take photos of coins? Please respond here... --Chepry (talk) 15:57, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

It is not permitted to take photos of copyrighted artworks unless an exception is listed in the copyright law and coins are artworks. Unfortunately, no exception appears to exist for euro coins. --Stefan4 (talk) 16:09, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

File:Needle Galaxy 4565.jpeg

Hi,
Regarding the info about File:Needle Galaxy 4565.jpeg, I have mailed the author to provide the permission via OTRS. Thank you for the notification.. Planet Herald (talk) 16:23, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

File:Nattheatmog,jpg

Hi. Can you please explain what makes you believe this image is a copyright violation? It is clearly labeled as public domain [3]. Please also note that the speedy deletion tag has a note on it which states that "if you think that the file does not meet the criteria for speedy deletion, please explain why on its talk page and remove this tag." I have left such a note on the file's talk page. Regards, Middayexpress (talk) 16:25, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

Replied on the file talk page. I'm not sure why the {{Copyvio}} tag recommends people to remove the tag. That risks causing lots of problems. The usual solution is to convert the tag into a deletion discussion instead. --Stefan4 (talk) 16:32, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, that seems a better solution. Can you please convert it, as I'm not sure how to? I've left a response on the talk page. Regards, Middayexpress (talk) 16:53, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

graphic on Tibetan Buddhism

What's the story about wanting to trash this graphic? It was work for me. Please see my remarks at: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Genealogy_of_Tibetan_Buddhist_schools_131128.png#File:Genealogy_of_Tibetan_Buddhist_schools_131128.png and reply on the Talk:Tibetan Buddhism page.

Moonsell (talk) 21:04, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

File:Andrew Hughes.jpg

Hi File:Andrew Hughes.jpg is, I believe, licensed under CC3.0 - if you scroll to the bottom of the article in which the photo appears (http://myedmondsnews.com/2012/06/qa-with-congressman-jim-mcdermotts-primary-opponent-andrew-hughes/) there is a notice that reads "My Edmonds News by http://www.myedmondsnews.com is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported License." DocumentError (talk) 06:11, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

Hm, yes, I must have overlooked that. Was the image created by that website, or did the website use another image from some unknown source? It looks as if this might be some kind of official photo which the website obtained from the interviewed person - but I suppose that probably just would make it {{PD-USGov}} instead... --Stefan4 (talk) 09:41, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

TTIP.png

Lo Stef,

What up w/this:

=> User talk:Susanna.kaukinen#File:TTIP.png

I took both images from wikimedia, put them together, so I cannot see how there could be a copyright violation! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Susanna.kaukinen (talk • contribs) 2013-12-04T21:09:08‎ (CET) (UTC)

Non-free logos are not permitted on Commons, sorry. They can sometimes be uploaded locally at fi:Special:Upload if tagged with fi:Template:Logo, but I don't know the exact requirements for that. --Stefan4 (talk) 22:07, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

I TOOK BOTH OF THOSE IMAGES FROM WIKIMEDIA - HOW CAN THEY BE NON-FREE?

FFS.

THE LOGO CANNOT BE NON-FREE, IF I TOOK TWO FREE IMAGES AND PUT THEM TOGETHER MYSELF, CAPICE?

No wonder there is no more content than this here. JC.

But you know, I don't care. I just uploaded them to anon image upload, so see if I fucking care.

Soviet Russia, this place. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Susanna.kaukinen (talk • contribs) 2013-12-05T02:42:17 (CET) (UTC)

Lots of Wikipedia projects host non-free images for various reasons, for example for use under the conditions listed in articles 22-25 of the copyright law. That an image is hosted on Wikipedia is no evidence that it is free. --Stefan4 (talk) 13:46, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

File:DEF13.png

Hi, Stefan4. As I've mentioned under the picture, I have contacted the organizer. They not only allowed me to use their logo, they have also sent me the logo. Should I copy the email conversation somewhere or what should I do to keep the picture? Thanks. SonCZ. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SonCZ (talk • contribs) 2013-12-04T22:52:25 (CET) (UTC)

Please follow the instructions at Template:Image permission/en. Note that a permission which only allows you to use the logo is insufficient. --Stefan4 (talk) 22:29, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Melbourne Evening Herald flag (red).svg

This DR may be of interest to you. Fry1989 ^eh? 19:36, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

re: Republican logos

Thanks for the email! I think the license laundering speedy tag was incorrect; I replied at User talk:INeverCry. Kind regards! VQuakr (talk) 01:32, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Löschungsanträge diverser Münzbilder

Was ist denn an der Einstellung von Münzen aus meinem Privateigentum auszusetzen? Wenn dies die Gemeinschaft nicht wünscht, werde ich mir zukünftig die Arbeit sparen und keinen Beitrag mehr leisten. — Preceding unsigned comment added by D.j.mueller (talk • contribs) 2013-12-08T21:15:44 (CET) (UTC)

You did not make the coins yourself. Someone else, normally an engraver working for a central bank, designed the coins. Depending on the country, you will have to ask either the engraver or the central bank for permission. If the coin is very old, then the copyright has expired. For example, you can upload photos of any 18th century coin, but some 19th century coins and many 20th and 21st century coins can't be uploaded. You can find specific information about different countries at Commons:Currency. --Stefan4 (talk) 00:05, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Das ist ein praxisfremder Ansatz "you will have to ask either the engraver or the central bank for permission." Wie soll ich als einfacher Bürger eine juristisch belastbare Antwort erhalten und wie soll ich diese juristisch belastbar Euch überbringen? Eine einfache E-Mail-Antwort reicht da nicht... Da bin ich Monate beschäftigt mit administrativen Vorlauf nur um ein einziges Foto hochzuladen.

Ich kann verstehen, dass das Urheberrecht in der USA anders juristisch definiert ist als in Deutschland. Aber Wochen/Jahre später Löschanträge zu stellen demotiviert jeden Autor. Wenn Du Dich als Lösch-User in Commons weiter positiv betätigen willst, so solltest Du dafür mitsorgen, dass die Fotos nicht einfach gelöscht werden, sondern zunächst nur auf non-public umgestellt werden und dann ein Offizieller der Wikimedia Foundation sich um die entsprechenden Dokumente für die Lizenzierung kümmert beim jeweiligen Urheber. Die Wikimedia Foundation und ihre Länder-Vertretungen haben inzwischen so viel Geld für Festangestellte, die könnten dann neben Betrieb und Öffentlichkeitsarbeit, sich auch um das besorgen von Foto-Lizensierung kümmern. Das gewinnen von neuen Wiki-Autoren ist so mühselig und schwierig, da sollte man die bestehenden Wiki-Autoren nicht demotivieren.

--ocrho (talk) 21:14, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, but it is the responsibility of the uploaders to make sure that the images have a valid copyright tag and that all permissions are in place. It is unfortunate that some copyright violations remain on Commons for several years, but that is sometimes the case if a problem file isn't discovered until much later. --Stefan4 (talk) 23:25, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Diverse LA für Orden staatlicher Stellen, wie BRD und DDR

Was sollen die Löschanträge zu den Orden und Ehrenzeichen, die mein Vater Friedrich Hund erhielt? --GFHund (talk) 07:36, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Stefan, gibts denn wirklich keine produktivere Aufgabe, die du hier in Commons erledigen könntest? Ich bin wie viele andere auch des Diskutierens müde. Irgendwann wirds auch hier in commons nur noch Trolle und Löschantragssteller geben, aber keinen mehr, der sinnvollen Content bringt. Schade eigentlich. --Ordercrazy (talk) 16:09, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

The problem is that it seems that your father merely received the medals, but that someone else designed them. We need permission from the engraver. --Stefan4 (talk) 23:28, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Das sind Auszeichnungen staatlicher Institutionen, wie Präsident der Deutschen Demokratischen Republik, Präsident der Bundesrepublik Deutschland, Präsidenten in- und ausländischer Universitäten und so weiter. Sowohl die Präsidenten als auch die Hersteller sind bereits sehr lange tot, teils mehr als 70 Jahre. Ich erstellte die Fotos und habe deshalb die Urheberrechte an den Fotos. Freundlicherweise lud ich diese Fotos nach Commons, um zur Bebilderung vieler Artikel in der Wikipedia in sehr vielen Sprachversionen beizutragen, wie zum Beispiel Nationalpreis der DDR und Max-Planck-Medaille. Außerdem half ich bei der Bebilderung der Artikel vieler Nobelpreisträger. Soll das alles verloren gehen? Soll die Wikipedia langsam aber sicher sterben. Soll ich den Erfinder der Wikipedia anschreiben, denn dieser lebt noch und war auch mal in Bayern, meiner früheren Heimat, zu Besuch. Der Bundespräsident, der meinem Vater 1965 das Große Verdienstkreuz der Bundesrepublik Deutschland verlieh, lebt nicht mehr. Den derzeitigen Bundespräsidenten möchte ich nicht mit Deinen Problemen belästigen. --GFHund (talk) 07:06, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

The German Democratic Republic was founded less than 70 years ago, so no engravers from the German Democratic Republic can have been dead for at least 70 years. You only hold the copyright to your photographic contributions but not to the underlying medals. As explained at Commons:WikiProject Public Domain/German stamps review, you can only use the templates {{PD-GermanGov}} and de:Vorlage:Bild-PD-Amtliches Werk for text, never for any images. No other valid copyright tag has been identified for the medals. --Stefan4 (talk) 14:43, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Siehe die Diskussionsseiten der 15 betroffenen Medaillen. Ürigens wurde der Nationalpreis vor Gründung der DDR an meinen Vater verliehen und ist ein amtliches Werk der Regierung der früheren Ostzone. Außerdem schaltete ich meine Rechtsanwälte ein. --GFHund (talk) 11:04, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Heute hat ein Bot sämtliche Bilder gelöscht und aus den Artikeln entfernt. Sehr schade für die Wikipedia, die jetzt wohl allmählich restlos zerststört werden wird. --GFHund (talk) 14:42, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

User:Jameslwoodward, who deleted the files, is not a bot, but a normal user like you and me. Upon deletion, the images were probably removed from all Wikipedia articles by a bot, but that is a separate matter. --Stefan4 (talk) 14:54, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Texas Forts Trail

Sefan,

I have an email with permission from the director of the Texas Forts Trail stating that I have permission to post the logo for that company. Is this grounds for undeleting the logo uploaded? How do I go about this?Flofor15 (talk) 15:00, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

If the permission only is for uploading the image to Commons, then the permission is insufficient. If the permission is sufficient, send it to [email protected]. If the permission is sufficient, this should lead to restoration of the file. --Stefan4 (talk) 15:04, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Temp restore

I've temporarily restored the images in Commons:Undeletion requests/Current requests#Commons:Deletion requests/Copyrighted buildings in Slovenia, in case you want to look at them and comment further. INeverCry 22:48, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

File:Bailii.gif

Duplicate discussion. --Stefan4 (talk) 12:57, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
This is an organisation logo, just like File:Microsoft logo and wordmark.svg. It is for use on that organisation's Wikipedia page only. I added the same licenses. Please undelete, or explain to me which license is appropriate? Wikidea (talk) 09:43, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

File:Henri et colombes.jpg

Danke für den Hinweis, allerdings habe ich keine Unterlagen zum Urheber bzw. Rechteinhaber. Dies war ein Werbeplakat für die Tour sowie Auftritte und diente gleichzeitig als Autogramm-Karte, deswegen bin ich mir nicht sicher wie es sich in einem solchen Fall mit dem Urheberrecht verhält, oder ob überhaupt eines besteht. Falls Sie der Meinung sind, es könnte gegen ein Urheberrecht verstoßen, dann bitte ich Sie, dass das Bild aus dem Commons zu entfernen. Beide Bilder entstammen dem privaten Archiv bzw. Nachlass von Henri Kassagi. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SaProgéniture (talk • contribs) 2013-12-13T21:15:00‎ (UTC)

Toutes les photographies sont protégées par droit d'auteur pendant au moins 70 ans. Selon fr:Henri Kassagi, Kassagi est né en 1932, et donc on sait que File:Henri et colombes.jpg a été prise après 1942. La photographie est protégée par droit d'auteur et il faut contacter le photographe pour l'autorisation. --Stefan4 (talk) 00:01, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

You are harming wp:commons!

Stefan, please understand, that it is your responsibility that authors leave WP-projects. You and a few others are harming WP & commons with mass-deletion-requests more than any possibly copyrighted image ever could. I promise: One of us will leave here soon. --Ordercrazy (talk) 07:11, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Could you please specify what you are talking about? This is neither obvious from your comment above, nor from the discussion at COM:AN/U. --Stefan4 (talk) 14:27, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

COM:AN/U

---

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems#User:Ordercrazy. This is in relation to an issue with which you may have been involved.

LGA talkedits 08:22, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Comment by User:B25es

Hola. En mi caso, borra todas las imágenes de monedas de Colombia.

Hi. As for me, erase all images of Colombian coins.

Hola: Per mi, esborra totes les imatges de monedes de Colòmbia.

Do you understand? Antens? ¿Te enteras?

Too busy to care about it

Massa ocupat per a fer-se càrrec.

Demasiado ocupado para que le importe un pito.

B25es (talk) 16:52, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

PS Y si quieres borrar todas las demas imágenes de monedas, cojonudo. I si vols esborrar totes les altres imatges de monedes, collonut. And if you were so kind as to erase all other images of coins, I would be delighted.

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	Je suis l'auteur avec les 2 productions Lardux Films et Zorobabel de cette affiche que vous avez supprimée sur la page commons Louise Lemoine Torrès. Il s'agit de notre film... Comment faire pour l'apposer sur la page Louise Lemoine Torrès ? Merci de votre aide Dalousan Dalousan (talk) 08:58, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

En ce cas, il faut contacter OTRS: Commons:OTRS/fr. --Stefan4 (talk) 13:44, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Delete requests

Hi Stefan4, you asked for the deletion of some coins that I uploaded. Why is it not legal to photograph (by myself) a coin of the 17th century (the engraver should be long dead) and upload it? What if I took the picture of the coin out of a book from the 19th century, so the photographer and the encraver a long gone? Thanks for any clarification on this mattter.--Linear77 (talk) 19:58, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

It doesn't say where the photographs of the coins come from. Per COM:ART#Photograph of an old coin found on the Internet, the photographer must be identified and the photographer must also add a copyright tag for the photograph. If you took the photographs yourself, then please state that and add something like {{Cc-by-sa-4.0}}. --Stefan4 (talk) 00:26, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Thank you. What about photographs of coins from a book published in the 19th century?--141.30.123.16 07:08, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

The coins you uploaded photos of are from Germany. In Germany, the copyright expires 70 years after the death of the photographer (or 70 years after publication if the photographer is anonymous). If you can show that the photographer who took the photos in the book died more than 70 years ago, then the images can be uploaded. --Stefan4 (talk) 13:36, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

The book was published in 1888. It will be tricky to figure out if a photographer of 1888 still lived in 1944 (70 years ago). Nevertheless, thank you again for the clarification.--141.30.123.16 15:12, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

File:Beiqi Foton Motor logo.png

Hello Stefan4, Thank you for the message. However I'd like to understand how does the file:Beiqi Foton Motor logo.png violate wikipedia commons rights? I work for Foton company, my boss gave me the logo and asked me to update it on Wikipedia, the file belongs to us and we'd like to share it on commons. Please give me more information to succeed the file upload. Many thanks Shan (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 2013-12-19T03:55:25 (UTC)

Most logos are copyrighted and can't be uploaded here. If the company is willing to license the photograph, then please follow the instructions at COM:OTRS. --Stefan4 (talk) 15:11, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Autorisations de réutilisation du fichier File:Coin BE 40F Leopold I rev A1.TIF

Bonjour,

Suite à votre message, j'ai envoyé un e-mail à '[email protected]', ce lundi 16, afin de demander l'avis sur une adaptation du texte que je comptais demander aux ayants-droits, vu la caractéristique spécifique (puisqu'il s'agit de près de 400 photos de pièces de monnaie que je compte introduire et que c'est une institution, la Monnaie royale de Belgique, qui détient les droits et non une personne physique). Je n'ai pas encore reçu de réponse. Voyant la date butoir pour le suppression des fichiers approcher, j'ai, à présent, envoyé une demande à la Monnaie royale mais puis-je demander votre clémence par rapport à cette suppression. L'introduction des photos sur Commons m'ont pris pas mal de temps, vu que je les ai accompagnées de descriptions dans 4 langues. Et vu qu'on approche des fêtes, 7 jours, c'est très court. Je ne suis vraiment pas sûr d'obtenir une réponse si rapide. Merci d'avance. Et déjà de joyeuses fêtes. --Delsaut (talk) 23:04, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Deletion of File:Ambilogo.svg and File:Spherical Harmonics deg5.png

Hi Stefan! You tagged a recent upload of mine for deletion without further comment or clarification. I responded to your tagging within a few hours, only to find the file deleted now, less than 12 hours later, apparently by another admin, again without comment or clarification or any sign that my clarification has been acknowledged. See Commons:Undeletion requests/Current requests#File:Ambilogo.svg. This is really not productive behaviour. I don't envy you guys for the amount of garbage you have to wade through daily, but shooting down content at random is no way to ease the pain.--Nettings (talk) 10:23, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

You shouldn't mix up copyright with trademarks. Apparently, a user undeleted the file without considering the source country, so the file is now up for deletion again. The previous deletion was at a time when I wasn't around, so I didn't see your complaint until after the file had been deleted. --Stefan4 (talk) 14:06, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

Stefan, you have now nominated a bunch of other files which I have just uploaded for deletion. Sorry, but this totally does not work for me and I will refuse to contribute to Wikimedia commons in the future, if your behaviour is the officially sanctioned one. I do not question your argument about trademark vs. copyright. What I miss is the assumption of goodwill that is fundamental to Wikipedia, and a constructive attitude to resolving such problems, rather than just deleting stuff on very short notice. The Ambisonic logo in question is used as intended by the former trademark holder, with proper attribution. And if there is indeed a problem in the future, the file can be deleted then. I don't see why I should waste my time with excessive self-censorship if there is no problem. The fact that it is an expired trademark does indicate that it is _very_ unlikely that there will be any claims from any potential copyright holder. I was unable to even find out who the copyright holder is. I had meant to upload it to wikipedia as fair use (which I've in fact done just now), but was directed to Wikimedia Commons by a nag screen, to make it available under less restrictive terms. I had no idea how much of a PITA this was going to be.

As to the spherical harmonics illustrations, I have personally requested permission from the author (who is a personal acquaintance and respected colleague) to upload them to Commons as CC-BY-SA, which he has granted. I just wanted to save him the work of uploading it himself. If you don't trust me with this, how can you assume I wouldn't just send you a fake email as proof? What is this all about? I even gave his contact email. Anybody who disputes the validity of my statement can just write to him and verify.

I appreciate being educated about copyright issues, but I'm not wasting my time with wannabe copyright lawyers when all I want to do is get an article done, and properly illustrated. What I will do now is add the files as non-free, as a scientific quotation. I won't even bother to argue that they are a generic depiction that is almost certainly not copyrightable. Everyone loses. Please get some perspective, and please, pretty please, Wikimedia Commons, fix your procedures, because they are broken. I'm outta here.--80.139.155.55 02:00, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, there seems to be a problem with my login cookie from Wikipedia. I hadn't meant the above comment to be anonymous. --Nettings (talk) 02:05, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

The rules of Commons (which happen to be identical to those of Wikipedia) are very simple: it is the uploader's responsibility to ensure that the images are free to use, see COM:EVIDENCE. If an image has been used outside Commons before it was uploaded here (as is the case with the logo image), or if the image was uploaded by someone other than the copyright holder (as was the case with the other nominated images), then the copyright holder has to send in evidence that the file is freely licensed per the instructions at COM:OTRS. --Stefan4 (talk) 10:41, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

I have no problem with these rules. I was just irritated to see how people here apparently care more about metadata than about the content itself, or what it is used for. If you want to send a message to new users that there is a problem with a good-faith contribution, nominating it for deletion is a weird thing to do. That's what I mean by fix your procedures (not you personally, Commons as a whole). I was also caught unawares how rigid the copyright testing is - like you say, I thought it my responsibility to vouch for it, but my word was not accepted. Being a long-time open content person myself, I had assumed that if an upload is tagged as such, with some informal evidence, that would be taken at face value, so I was really surprised at the reactions (as in, assume good will, have trust, and whatnot). Having templates thrown at you without any individual consideration of the case does appear hostile, and seeing your stuff deleted while you are looking for clarification, even more so. I can see how templates are necessary to some degree to deal with the workload, but it just sucks if you're on the receiving end of a raging bunch of law-and-order metapedians (again, this is not directed at you personally, it just recalled old unpleasantries I'd been through before). It's a bit of an armed stand-off: those that can quote the most policy items win, and they spend day and night honing their arsenal...--Nettings (talk) 11:09, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

File:Logo-tudomus-1.JPG

Hi. You may be interested in Commons:Undeletion_requests/Archive#File:Logo-tudomus-1.JPG (which will probably eventually be Commons:Undeletion_requests/Archive#File:Logo-tudomus-1.JPG. It was a reply to you. After that, at User talk:Mentor007#File:Logo-tudomus-1.JPG I attempted to direct that user to COM:OTRS/es with information about how a company executive/manager might use OTRS to grant permission. --Closeapple (talk) 11:53, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

File:AHUar.jpg

Hi, this picture represents the logo of Al-Hussein Bin Talal University, we need this picture to use it in the Wikipedia education program. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nidal.yousef (talk • contribs) 2013-12-21T14:37:47 (UTC)

There is no evidence that the logo is available under a free licence. If it is available under a free licence for some reason, then you will need to ask the copyright holder to follow the instructions at COM:OTRS. --Stefan4 (talk) 14:41, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

Borrados

Respecto de

• 20 euro Mundial ESP087.jpg
• ESP010.JPG

borralas.

Añade a la lista las siguientes:

• PRT001.JPG
• PRT003.JPG
• PRT005.JPG
• PRT006.JPG
• PRT023.JPG
• PRT029.JPG
• PRT032.JPG
• PRT034.JPG
• PRT036.JPG
• PRT038.JPG
• PRT039.JPG
• PRT040.JPG
• PRT043.JPG
• AAS001.JPG
• AAS002.JPG
• SCG040.JPG
• SCG041.JPG
• SCG042.JPG
• SCG043.jpg

B25es (talk) 18:11, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

File:ForestryManuscriptFAO.jpg

Unlike you, I actually have a life outside of this, and this means I will step away from the computer from time to time. If a 8 minutes' delay is not acceptable to you, then go notify the uploader yourself. Furthermore, there is no policy that obligates me, or anyone else to leave such notifications. I'll take my time now, thanks -FASTILY 00:27, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Sorry about that. However, do notice that the {{No permission since}} template tells that "Unless permission is granted, the file may be deleted seven days after this template was added and the uploader was notified". That is, deletion can't take place until at the earliest seven days after the uploader has been notified, essentially making notification mandatory. --Stefan4 (talk) 22:21, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

File:Image-request.png

Hi Stefan4, re the revert of File:Image-request.png, I'm trying to sync it with the latest version on Wikipedia w:File:Image-request.png to complete a previously attempted and failed Commons move. Given there are links to both I would appreciate your thoughts on the best way to resolve this. Upload the Wikipedia version under a new name in Commons perhaps? Cube00 (talk) 18:48, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

I think that it is better to get the file split in two. See {{Split}}. The other image is used on lots of pages on Japanese Wikipedia and also on other projects, and those projects might not be happy if the file is overwritten by a vastly different file. --Stefan4 (talk) 22:17, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Regarding deletion of Category:Krugerrand and it's contents

A snarky pun calling Bitcoin "Dunning-Krugerrands" (Dunning–Kruger effect + Krugerrand) led me to take a glance at en:Wikipedia's Krugerrand article. I was a bit surprised to find it devoid of images as coin articles generally have at least an opening infobox image.

A look at the article's edit history led me to Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Krugerrand which offers only a short assertion—"There is no evidence that South African coins are free for any reason"—as explanation for deletion.

I'm curious, does this mean that in fact many—if not all—modern era coin images are to be disallowed in Commons? Or is there something unique about South African coins which makes them inappropriate?

--Kevjonesin (talk) 04:41, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Ah, I've done a bit of web research and now think I've answered my own question. I'm a U.S. resident and as such am used to most stuff put out by the government being in the public domain. Apparently this is not the case in South Africa where state retention of copyright seems to be the norm unless specifically excepted.

I've looked at some other South African coin images used in en:Wikipedia articles (examples: A, B, C) and noticed that they're hosted on en:Wikipedia—rather than Commons—and include 'non-free use rationales'.

I'd like to suggest that perhaps in the future—as a friendly courtesy—you might take a moment to post copies of a brief notification to the talk pages of articles affected when proposing deletion of images which are actively in use. This would allow Wikipedia editors an opportunity to anticipate the change in advance rather than respond after the fact.

In some cases it may be appropriate to simply host a copy of a file proposed for deletion from Commons on the relevant Wikipedia(s) in which it is used and add a relevant non-free use rationale. Image resolution may be reduced as needed (perhaps via one of the Graphic Lab/Photography Workshops). This would maintain continuity in the relevant articles and save article editors the effort of 'starting from scratch' to acquire, adapt, and upload new images. A courtesy notice on relevant talk pages would at least allow an opportunity for this to happen. Or, if the editor proposing deletion was feeling particularly benevolent, they might just go ahead and make the change themselves while they had the relevant file(s) at hand.

--Kevjonesin (talk) 07:25, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Copyright laws differ from country to country. Some coins are accepted, some are not. See COM:CUR for an explanation of the situation in many countries. For example, in many European countries, you will have to wait until the engraver has been dead for at least 70 years before a photo of the coin can be uploaded here.

Uploading unfree coin images to Wikipedia would be against my country's copyright law, so that would pose legal risks for me. I also can't keep track of the fair use policies of all different Wikipedia projects. I think that there used to be a bot which placed notifications on Wikipedia talk pages, but that bot seems no longer to be working. --Stefan4 (talk) 22:30, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	Dear Stefan! Could you please help me out with the page "Global Medical Aid" - I am a neutral user that wishes to raise awareness about this great organization... It really saves lives - Why is there still a issue with the page? Thank you - Tack så mycket! Erikch1995 (talk) 19:37, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

This seems to be about a Wikipedia article. I suggest that you ask for help at w:WP:TEAHOUSE or w:WP:HD. --Stefan4 (talk) 15:52, 6 January 2014 (UTC)