Archives

2006-May 2012 May-July 2012 July 2012-September 2013

Hi Stefan, your concerns regarding the possibility of this file not being free for use has been addressed.

The license is clearly stated on the page underneath the photo and permission is given by the owner for free use. It is also indicated that in this case the subject of the picture is the owner of the copyright. http://www.imdb.com/media/rm2379849728/nm5556881?ref_=nmmi_mi_all_pbl_33 could you please fix this so the picture is no longer listed as a possibly unfree file?

Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Actor lover (talk • contribs) 00:14, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

As I wrote, there is no evidence that the IMDB uploader is the copyright holder. --Stefan2 (talk) 12:28, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

It is stated under the copyright notice of the picture that De-Wet Nagel himself is the copyright holder and has given it as free license. Is this not enough? How can I provide you what you need? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 105.237.28.82 (talk) 13:10, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

There is no evidence that the person who uploaded the image to IMDB is telling the truth. The photographer should follow the procedure outlined at WP:CONSENT. If the copyright has been transferred to someone other than the photographer, then you should provide evidence of the transfer of the copyright and also provide evidence that the copyright holder has allowed to use the image under a free licence. --Stefan2 (talk) 14:51, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

I see what you are saying. The photographer is listed as credit Jumpingrabbit creative and consent has been e-mailed from subject. I don't know what else to do. Could you let me know if this is enough or what procedure I still need to follow and how this photo will be in flagged? Is it something I need to do?

Please forgive me I'm new at this... Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.3.219.246 (talk • contribs) 2013-09-11T08:31:26 (UTC)

Hi Stefan2.

I need a second opinion on this: File:Iolo logo.svg. Do you think it is really eligible for copyright protection?

Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 07:31, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Hard to tell. There are light effects on the red thing to the left, and there are no examples of light effects at Commons:COM:TOO, except for a few Commons decisions (which may be wrong as the decisions weren't made by a court). Some light effects are trivial, so some light effects have to be below the threshold of originality, but it is difficult to know how complex they can be without any proper examples.

There is also the case Adobe Systems, Inc. v. Southern Software, Inc. to pay attention to. If you create a font, then the individual letter shapes are in the public domain, but the vectorisation in a TTF file is copyrightable as computer software. I would assume that many SVG files may be copyrightable as computer software, and in that case, you would need permission from the person who made the vectorisation. An SVG file could maybe also be copyrightable as text if you write the source code in some particularly creative way, in particular if you edit it manually in a text editor (which might not be the case here due to Adobe Illustrator comments in the source). I try to be extra careful with SVG files for that reason. --Stefan2 (talk) 15:00, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Hi. I can vectorize the logo myself if there is a need. So, all that remains is basically the light effects on the red turn off sign. I'll ask someone with image expertise. Thanks.

Best regards,

Codename Lisa (talk) 15:31, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Hello again

Do you happen to have access to Google Chrome 28 or later? I have a report that says the direct link does not render correctly there, like its Wikipedia render.

Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 16:06, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Mediawiki renders the image differently at different resolutions: [1][2][3]

Different web browsers also render it differently: Seamonkey 2.20 / Chromium 28.0.1500.71

I assume that Chrome 28 and Chromium 28 display the image identically. --Stefan2 (talk) 17:11, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Hmmm. Internet Explorer and Firefox both render like SeaMonkey. But I uploaded a version that is not rendered differently at different resolutions. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 20:24, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Update: Though luck. My version doesn't render well at any resolution higher than 800px. I hope there was a way of testing it before uploading. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 20:38, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

At least it displays correctly at the resolution used in the article, but it would be nice to have this corrected. --Stefan2 (talk) 13:02, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Hi. Sorry to bother you again with this. Could you please check it again in Chromium and Sea Monkey? Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 17:04, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Still looks wrong in Chromium. Seamonkey is, and should always be, identical to Firefox. --Stefan2 (talk) 17:27, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Hi. Strange. I just got confirmation that it looks okay on Chrome 28 and Dragon. Did you bypass your cache? Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 17:48, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

I tried deleting all browser data before looking at the image, but I missed that Chromium's cache was in a different directory. If I also delete the cache directory, then it displays correctly. --Stefan2 (talk) 20:22, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks a bunch. Too bad you lost your cache for me; although, next time, try Ctrl+⇧ Shift+R first, okay? Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 20:27, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

I put up a photo on my Wikipedia page, the same one that I intended for publicity and book covers, the photographer gave his permission after there was some question about if it could be used on Wikipedia as well, which said:

I hereby affirm I, Vineet Rajasekhar, am the creator and sole owner of the exclusive copyright of the portrait of N Lee Wood located here: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/0/04/NLeeWood%2C2011.jpg. I agree to publish that work under the free license "Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported" and GNU Free Documentation License (unversioned, with no invariant sections, front-cover texts, or back-cover texts). I acknowledge that by doing so I grant anyone the right to use the work in a commercial product or otherwise, and to modify it according to their needs, provided that they abide by the terms of the license and any other applicable laws. I am aware that this agreement is not limited to Wikipedia or related sites. I am aware that I always retain copyright of my work, and retain the right to be attributed in accordance with the license chosen. Modifications others make to the work will not be claimed to have been made by me. I acknowledge that I cannot withdraw this agreement, and that the content may or may not be kept permanently on a Wikimedia project. Vineet Rajasekhar, Creator and Copyright Holder vineet.rajasekhar@gmail.com +64 21 051 3562 26 August 2013

As far as I'm aware, he also sent this to permissions-en@wikimedia.org, as requested. But the photo has been taken down anyway.

What more do I need to do? Nonnythemouse (talk) 07:34, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

I have asked at WP:OTRS/N#File:NLeeWood,2011.jpg. --Stefan2 (talk) 14:16, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Hi, a new user Pdxleaf (talk · contribs) has uploaded and added the image File:Ernst Lindemann.JPG to the Ernst Lindemann article. Can you please check copyright status? Thanks MisterBee1966 (talk) 07:46, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

On Commons, the user wrote that he took the photo himself. This is dubious as the man died in 1941. We need a proper source in order to determine the copyright status, so I have nominated the file for deletion. See Commons:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Ernst Lindemann.JPG. --Stefan2 (talk) 14:07, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, I commented as well MisterBee1966 (talk) 14:15, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Hello. I am Dr. Harry Gouvas, Director of the Museum. The File Carress of the Sun shows a plastic black Doll with cement and cement hands aplied on her. The tittle is Caress of the Sun. I MADE THIS ART STRUCTURE and i made also the photograph. So File is Share Alike Contribution 3.0. Thanks Harrygouvas (talk) 05:18, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

We're almost fully resolved now as far as Wally is concerned. It transpires he was just following instructions given here and thought he'd done the right thing. Couldn't save any of his badges but managed to replace quite a few with alternatives from a permission granted source - they're all on Commons now. Turns out Wally is quite the artist, although he uses software to help him create his graphics - still, a very useful editor. Big thanks is due to Graeme Bartlett for his assistance to me and to Wally. Thanks to you as well for your guidance. As a result of the way it was handled we retained a useful (if embarrassed) editor with a great education, a fine mind and an interest in British military matters. I still have to comb the rest of Wally's editing history to weed out any more badges which might be lurking but the end is in sight. Thanks for letting me have the project. SonofSetanta (talk) 14:15, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

Hi Stefan. Could you do me a favour? If you've nominated the copy on the Commons for deletion could you please change the db-nowcommons template to a ((nominated for deletion on commons)) template? this will remove the image from the F8 deletion queue and save the persons managing that backlog from having to handle the file. Thanks! -- Diannaa (talk) 16:45, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

I thought that it was unnecessary to do that if the file would just end up being deleted soon, but if that creates extra work for you, then fine. I'm now using the "fail review" link in User:MGA73/nowcommonsreview.js if I also nominate the file for deletion on Wikipedia (as that is faster than inserting ((nominated for deletion on Commons)) manually) and will update to ((nominated for deletion on Commons)) or ((deleted on Commons)) if the file survives deletion here. I discovered that Category:All Wikipedia files with a different name on Wikimedia Commons contained lots of problem files and started checking the files.

By the way, are you well versed in the copyright terms for films? I found some British films from 1901 which had been moved to Commons, and there seem to be very complex copyright rules involved – see Commons:Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Robert W. Paul and Commons:Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Cheese Mites, or Lilliputians in a London Restaurant. --Stefan2 (talk) 21:45, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

On one level it's unnecessary, but it saves me having to investigate items you've already examined and nominated for deletion. And presumably (hopefully :/) I am not the only one working the F8 deletion queue, so you might be helping other admins as well. As to your question, no, I do not have much knowledge of copyright law as pertains to films. See you later, I gotta go out now and do a family thing. Best, -- Diannaa (talk) 21:52, 15 September 2013 (UTC) I guess it depends too on the reason for deletion. Stuff that has to go to PUF often sits for a really long time for example. This particular image is already gone. -- Diannaa (talk) 22:00, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

This particular image isn't gone, but because of some mistake, I apparently changed the file name when I wrote a previous comment, pointing at a non-existing file.

What do you think of Commons:File:Etlingera elatior-0001 01.jpg? The English Wikipedia uploader has one user name and the Commons uploader has another user name, but both claim own work. The English Wikipedia uploader also links to https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=2320715914901&l=87a20165c8 which links to the file information page on both Wikipedia and Commons, so maybe it's simply a user with two accounts? I did a quick cleanup by adding an original upload log, but note that the licensing also differs (Wikipedia has GFDL+CC-BY-SA whereas Commons only has CC-BY-SA).

I have found lots of images with wrong licence on Commons, like this (wrong CC licence & GFDL missing) or this (GFDL missing & also wrong author). I hope that you are carefully checking things which can easily be overlooked, such as wrong licence numbers and cc-by/cc-by-sa mixups, before deleting a file. --Stefan2 (talk) 22:16, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I do check and correct any errors in copying over the licensing and fix the user name if they've gotten it wrong or forgotten to put it in. The only time I leave the license alone is when the same person uploaded the image in both places, under the assumption that they've changed their mind (and yes I do know you can't actually change your mind once it's out there under license, but what are you gonna do). I add an original upload log if it is missing, and clean up any other junk that's present if I've already for the file open. I also check the number of pixels to make sure we don't end up with a smaller image than we had before (OgreBot catches some of these, but not all). For interesting historic photos, I check to see if a higher resolution copy is available elsewhere on the Web and upload it if there is. And I will tag for Flickr review if it's a Flickr image and add the proper attribution, and will see if the Flickr copy has more pixels, and bring it over if it does. Regarding the flowers, it looks to me like it's the same person. Check out the contribs for the user on the the Commons - there's a whole series of these images. commons:Special:Contributions/019ATAZLAN. Both user names contain the name "Azlan", which appears to be the person's actual name, judging by the Facebook account. -- Diannaa (talk) 02:39, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

You have nominated the audio cover image for deletion, initially I uploaded the text=logo image to feature in DYK, I thought it to relace it with the actual poster later. Now, may I put th audio template to the article's infobox? --Tito☸Dutta 16:07, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

The file is unfree, so it can't be used in DYK per WP:NFCC#9.

Soundtrack images are normally not appropriate in film articles per MOS:FILM#Soundtrack and WP:NFCC#9. --Stefan2 (talk) 18:53, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Stefan sorry for interjecting, one non-free file is allowed in an article (in this case the audio cover), the other image is not eligible for copyright and does not meet the threshold of originality as it consists merely of a few letters. That image was used in the DYK which is absolutely fine and was a free image and as for the soundtrack image that is the only non-free image in the article and can be added judging by wikipedia's policies. Sohambanerjee1998 08:37, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

• Nopes, I meant to move the poster in infobox and remove the other. --Tito☸Dutta 08:46, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

Tito, could not understand. Do you want the poster to stay or the album art? Which one? Sohambanerjee1998 09:11, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

I agree that File:Care of Sir Bengali movie poster.jpg isn't eligible for copyright in the United States. However, I am very suspicious about the copyright status in India. The Indian Copyright Act, 1957 is essentially a duplicate of the British Copyright Act 1956, and a British court found File:EDGE magazine (logo).svg to be copyrighted. There is no policy which automatically allows one non-free image. --Stefan2 (talk) 09:29, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

• Yes, TOO-Ind is a confusing issue. I recently studied it and mentioned in commons:Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Official_Aam_Aadmi_Party_logo_from_their_website.png. However, I am asking to move the image from the soundtrack section to infobox. --Tito☸Dutta 09:35, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Yes stefan I agree with you on this the reason being the colonial rule in India which led to most of the laws of India to be similar to their colonial counterparts. As for the the image this statement of yours has raised doubts in my mind also but there is one thing for Tito to rejoice about, the DYK is over. If this happened when the DYK was still in the pipeline it would have given him a run for his money. Tito's lucky in this matter. In all seriousness the query of yours is genuine and holds a lot of importance. Sohambanerjee1998 09:39, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

The current image (free one) which is in the infobox is not the full poster, only a part of it. The soundtrack one is that of a single. The full soundtrack cover - 1. Therefore I suggest to move the current soundtrack picture by updating it with this and move it to the infobox. Sohambanerjee1998 09:44, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

I apologise if any act I committed was malicious or derogatory. But some user kept replacing the official poster of Thalapathi with a fan-made version. I was just trying to undo that. Any act that I commit is at the end only for greater good, and I do not want anyone to think I'm causing vandalism. Kailash29792 (talk) 15:57, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Well, I saw that you and User:Onam2013 appeared to be having an edit war at File:Thalapathi poster.jpg, so I sent a warning to both of you. I looked at the links in the discussion on your talk pages, but I couldn't determine what's correct and what's wrong. The images contain text in a language I can't read, so they don't help me very much. --Stefan2 (talk) 18:53, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

The poster I uploaded is scanned from a book, by G. Dhananjayan. Onam's "poster" is actually a film still and contains a watermark, making it evidently a hoax. Who is doing just? Kailash29792 (talk) 07:06, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

I see that you brough the matter to WP:AN/EW, so let's see what's happening there. --Stefan2 (talk) 11:07, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Template talk:Countries in the Junior Eurovision Song Contest, a page you substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Template talk:Countries in the Junior Eurovision Song Contest and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Template talk:Countries in the Junior Eurovision Song Contest during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Ego White Tray (talk) 03:51, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading File:Estonia Police academy Patch.jpg. I noticed that this file is being used under a claim of fair use. However, I think that the way it is being used fails the first non-free content criterion. This criterion states that files used under claims of fair use may have no free equivalent; in other words, if the file could be adequately covered by a freely-licensed file or by text alone, then it may not be used on Wikipedia. If you believe this file is not replaceable, please:

1. Go to the file description page and add the text ((di-replaceable fair use disputed|<your reason>)) below the original replaceable fair use template, replacing <your reason> with a short explanation of why the file is not replaceable.
2. On the file discussion page, write a full explanation of why you believe the file is not replaceable.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media item by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by creating new media yourself (for example, by taking your own photograph of the subject).

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these media fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per the non-free content policy. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 15:20, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

I took a picture by myself with my camera? So what to do? Mravlja Matjaz (talk) 05:10, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, I forgot to reply. You need to license your photo under some licence, for example by adding ((GFDL)) or ((cc-by-sa-3.0)) to the image page. --Stefan2 (talk) 14:15, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Please consider withdrawing Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2013 September 3#File:DKM Album Alternative Cover.jpg as the redundant file has been deleted. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 15:11, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

It's still redundant. The only thing that happened was that the other file was converted from GIF to JPG. --Stefan2 (talk) 15:20, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Hello, Stefan2. You have new messages at Blurred Lines's talk page.
Message added 21:19, 26 September 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the ((Talkback)) or ((Tb)) template.

Blurred Lines 21:19, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Hi Stefan Thanks for your message. I am sure you get a lot of people who have no idea how to navigate wikipedia's IP issues, and I'm one of them. The photos are owned by Shashi Dhoj Tulachan, who is related to both the subjects of these photos (Dr Singh is a uncle, and the young rinpoche is his nephew). The photos are both of historic events in their lives and the history of Sambha gompa - their enthronement (formal recognition of being the incarnation and seated at this gompa). Both photos were shared with me for the explicit purpose and Shashi's permission to post on the wiki page of Sambha gompa. I will not be able to communicate with Shashi and ask who took the photos (i.e. owns them) for a few weeks as he is in Mustang . I will go there and return by end of October and only then will have email access again. Dr Singh is dead and the young rinpoche stays in India. Assuming Shashi is able to tell me who took the photos (which is not likely for Dr Singh's picture since he himself would have been a young man) what/ how do I proceed? I tried to read the non-free copyright thing but frankly I don't understand it and what I would have to do to address it. (It took me 30mins to work out how to reply here to you!) Thanks for your patience — Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.244.212.218 (talk • contribs) 2013-09-29T04:06:19 (UTC)

I think that you will have to ask the photographer to send an e-mail to permissions-en@wikimedia.org to confirm the copyright template you added. If you can't find out who the photographer is, then I don't think that we will be able to keep the images, sorry. --Stefan2 (talk) 20:56, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Hi Stefan I am back from Mustang Shashi Dhoj gave me the name of the photographer who took the Dr Mangal Singh picture, a frenchman who wrote a book on the himalayas. My feeling is he is dead...but am trying to follow up. If dead- what next? For the young rinpoche, my understanding is that Shashi or a close friend took it- but have sought clarification from a Nepali speaker. Shashi will be back in Kathmandu in a week or so and I will visit him again, hopefully with the nepali speaker to verify. Thanks for your patience — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nima t100 (talk • contribs) 05:36, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

If the photographer is dead, then the photographer's heirs should send the permission statement instead. --Stefan2 (talk) 13:05, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

I have started a thread at Commons ANI Commons:Commons:Administrators'_noticeboard#My_disappointment:_TOO_and_India Tito☸Dutta 01:08, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Hi there. Before we get into an edit war, let's talk.

I've been removing ((non-free reduce)) because that template is calling for files to be reduced in size. Clearly, since an SVG is designed to be scalable, that's a pointless excercise. I can scale it down, sure, but that won't stop anyone from rendering it at any size without issue.

You seem to be objecting to the level of sophistication of some of the images. That's fine, but using ((non-free reduce)) is the wrong way to do it. If you think that an SVG falls out of policy because of how complicated it is, create a PNG version and then place the SVG up for deletion, citing the policy on SVGs. But don't ask for it to be reduced using ((non-free reduce)), because that's not going to happen. Making an SVG less complex by removing elements is tantamount to making it inaccurate, and I won't do that. Considering how long the template has been on some of those items, I doubt that anyone is going to do that, because no one actually does manual resizing anymore (although I might do a run soon because that backlog is embarrassing).

So yeah, the TLDR is that if you object to the SVGs on complexity grounds, replace them with PNGs and have the SVGs zapped, because there are no other good options. Sven Manguard Wha? 07:07, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

So while I was writing this, you were posting a message on my talk page. I'll check back here tomorrow for a response, and will hold off on finishing the detagging until we figure something out, but for now, it's 3:15 AM local time and I'm heading off. Sven Manguard Wha? 07:13, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

If you remove geometrical elements, then you do reduce the file's size. Size is not always measured in pixel count. For example, for sound and video files, size is determined by running time, in addition to pixel count (for video files) and audio quality (for sound files). For an SVG file, the size is mainly determined by the number and detail of the geometrical elements, so ((non-free reduce)) appears to apply. Category:Fair use images that should be in SVG format is very clear that SVG files shouldn't contain too many details. Uploading a PNG file isn't possible as that would mean violating the copyright law of my country, exposing me to legal risks. There have been a few discussions at WP:FFD and WP:NFCR where SVG files have been replaced by PNG, though. --Stefan2 (talk) 10:09, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

In the case of File:National Pest Management Association logo.svg, a file I see that you detagged, the problem is different: the logo is clearly ((PD-textlogo)), but per Adobe Systems, Inc. v. Southern Software, Inc. it seems that some SVG files are copyrightable as computer software. If the SVG code meets the threshold of originality for computer software (there's no example at Commons:COM:TOO so the situation is unclear), then the problem isn't WP:NFCC#3b but WP:NFCC#1 (freely licensed SVG source code could easily be written). --Stefan2 (talk) 10:09, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

No, no, no, if you reduce the "number and detail of the geometrical elements" you're taking a faithful representation and turning it into an unfaithful representation. Not only will I refuse to do that, but if I see someone else doing that, I will simply list the file for deletion as inaccurate, and take the person making the edits to task for deliberately misrepresenting the logo, which is the same as introducing deliberate factual errors, which is a type of vandalism. You cannot say 'oh, this is too complicate, let's just delete a few shapes'. As I said above, if you object to the SVGs on complexity grounds, replace them with PNGs and have the SVGs zapped. Sven Manguard Wha? 20:05, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Well, WP:NFCC#3b is very clear that you shouldn't include too many details. If someone nevertheless does that, then the file needs to be reduced in some manner by removing details. For example, conversion to PNG is one way to reduce it. --Stefan2 (talk) 20:55, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

I fail to see any other way to do it. In fact, I'm seriously considering proposing that we disallow non-free SVGs in the first place, and either replace them with PNGs or assess them as PD-ineligible and move them to Commons. Sven Manguard Wha? 21:07, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Simply disallowing non-free SVGs would simplify it. Some files such as File:GateKeeper logo.svg are way too big and display details which would never be acceptable for a PNG file. Keep in mind that PDF files also may contain vector graphic, so those might also need to be disallowed. --Stefan2 (talk) 21:35, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Template:SVG-Res states "The default rendering of this image is of a size and resolution sufficient to maintain the quality intended by the company or organization, without being unnecessarily high resolution." If these images are not reduced, this statement is incorrect. 117Avenue (talk) 05:26, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Hi. How about reducing the default rendering dimensions, as I've just done at File:Parade of the Athletes - Unmixed.svg? -- Trevj (talk) 09:25, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

PS Sorry that's not actually a good example for me to have picked, because from now looking at Parade of the Athletes, only one of those cover images is justifiable, so we can arrange for deletion once we've all had a look... -- Trevj (talk) 09:31, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

If a file is tagged for violation of WP:NFCC#3b, then it means that the file contains too much information and that some information needs to be removed. If the file is a pixel image, then information is removed by removing some pixels (i.e. reducing the resolution). However, if a file is a vector image, then reducing the screen resolution doesn't mean removing any information. It would be totally unacceptable to store the PNG file generated by the wikicode [[File:GateKeeper logo.svg|3000px]] if the image were uploaded in PNG format, and the same must obviously also apply when the image is uploaded in SVG format.

The covers for Parade of the Athletes are arguably below the threshold of originality. --Stefan2 (talk) 12:22, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for replying. If vector images are available, then uploading and using them on Wikipedia allows us provide higher quality information to readers. By rendering at low resolutions (both in article and file namespaces) then we're minimising the extent of use, as seen by readers. If the links (on file pages) to render in other resolutions were removed, then I think that one main difference between us storing vector images and providing links to high resolution bitmap images (hosted elsewhere and often listed under 'source' in FURs) is the technical one. In practical terms, readers in both circumstances can easily access hi-res versions (assuming no dead links for sources). Anyway, this is probably a discussion best had elsewhere... has anyone searched yet to see if a similar discussion has already happened in the past somewhere? -- Trevj (talk) 19:50, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

The problem is that as long as the SVG files can be used to create a perfectly rendered image at a high resolution, then the images do not satisfy WP:NFCC#3b. Removing the links to higher resolution wouldn't solve anything as you could still access the high-resolution renderings by downloading the SVG source code (which itself violates WP:NFCC#3b) and render it in PNG format on your own computer, or by typing in [[File:GateKeeper logo.svg|3000px]] in the edit box and download the resulting image.

This problem has been discussed a few times before. For example, this discussion has a fair amount of comments. I think that there was a case at FFD at some point during the past year or so with more discussion, but I don't remember what the file was called, and I haven't been able to locate that discussion. --Stefan2 (talk) 20:28, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. Did you see Category talk:Fair use images that should be in SVG format? -- Trevj (talk) 23:05, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

No. That page discusses an interesting point: what's big in one context isn't necessarily big in another context. For pixel graphics, we typically assume that images shouldn't be bigger than what is needed to display the article on a screen, but that is probably less than what the US laws require. See also Category:Rescaled fairuse files more than 7 days old which states that "The resolution should approximately fit the intended use in the article." The text seems to originate from Category:Rescaled fairuse images more than 7 days old for which the original history is unavailable except for administrators. --Stefan2 (talk) 10:18, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

• I stated my opposition to the claim that SVGs are infinite resolution at the WP:Village pump (idea lab) thread about it. We certainly should not disallow them as a rule. However, I think that we should be skeptical of converting logos to SVG for another reason, namely, that the way in which resolution is lost, and by who, is a little iffy. Too often I see SVG images display differently in a browser vs. Inkscape, etc.; you're turning an image into almost a program. Displaying logos incorrectly isn't something we want to do for any number of reasons, so it may make more sense just to stick with the unsophisticated format. Wnt (talk) 19:12, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
  • I agree that SVG files do not necessarily have an infinite resolution. The word "resolution" typically refers to the quality of an image. If an SVG file consists of one circle, then it has a low resolution. If it consists of two circles, then it has slightly higher resolution. If it consists of a million circles and is unfree, then it is probably too big and needs to be reduced, either by converting to pixel graphics or by removing a number of the circles. --Stefan2 (talk) 20:10, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Stefan,

received your comments and it runed out we need approval from the publisher of the journal. I will upload another picture which is free content and created ourselves to publish on wiki. The one submitted can be removed

Bernardusmuller (talk) 08:45, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

I saw you left a message on my wall. I went ahead and forwarded the email by the priest of St George's Episcopal Church to permissions-en@wikimedia.org but did not receive a reply. Would you like me to forward you the email? How shall I take care of this issue? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Maodhóg (talk • contribs) 05:07, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

It looks as if there currently is a backlog of 20 days, so it might take some time before someone reads the e-mail. --Stefan2 (talk) 10:22, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Hi. Did you follow Wikipedia:Files_for_deletion/2013_June_8#File:Holyfield_vs_Bowe.jpg to its conclusion? This would seem to set a precedent for the use of these posters.--SaskatchewanSenator (talk) 20:40, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

I missed that one. It seems that we have two separate discussions with completely different outcome which were closed approximately at the same time, so the situation doesn't seem to be clear at all. I guess that this should be taken up for further discussion somewhere. Maybe both discussions should be taken to WP:DRV together. I see that neither discussion mentions the RfC which took place at WT:NFC during those discussions, so the closing administrators were not necessarily aware of that and might not have taken the RfC in consideration when closing the discussions. --Stefan2 (talk) 09:37, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

 Done The whole set has been listed at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2013 October 6#Various boxing posters. This includes both the kept and the deleted ones. --Stefan2 (talk) 16:05, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. This should resolve it.--SaskatchewanSenator (talk) 06:24, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Stefan2, thank-you very much for answering the concerns at File:Musée Hergé.jpg. I have fought two attempts people have made to eradicate that photo from the planet Earth and have twice prevailed. I had not logged on in a few days and missed this most recent battle that you gallantly took up; I thank-you; you did a much better job than I would have done. Please continue to help me keep an eye on this file. Cheers. Prhartcom (talk) 06:38, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Hi Stefan, I have updated the file and changed the tag to non-free use poster. I have also provide explanation why it meets the non-free use criteria and should feature in the article. I have even send my contract to Wikipedia to prove that I represent the owner of the picture. The picture is inside a digital brochure so there can't be include copyright information on that place. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Andrei.varban (talk • contribs) 09:14, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

At FFD, you said I don't know why someone tagged the image with ((db-f3)) as it doesn't have any of the specified copyright statuses to which F3 applies. It was tagged by User:Blurred Lines, who either is attempting to get rid of nonfree images en masse or who doesn't at all understand the speedy deletion criteria for files. I gave him a stern warning a few days ago because he was tagging tons of valid fair-use claims as db-f7, and I've levied a block because he tagged a pile of valid fair-use claims as db-f3 despite the warning. Nyttend (talk) 13:51, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I have seen a couple of strangely applied speedy tags by that user, and I have also discussed his use of speedy tags on his talk page a couple of times. I also think that the user is a bit impolite to other users when they contact him on his talk page. See for example this message where an uploader tells that he has sent permission to OTRS and Blurred Lines answered by deleting the section with a nasty edit summary. I don't know what people were writing on the mentioned file talk page (probably File talk:Boney James 2013.jpg) as that page has been deleted. --Stefan2 (talk) 14:24, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Dear Stefan, please feel free to do whatever you like with the image. I don't intent to pursue the matter at all - life's too short. Timothy Titus ^{Talk To TT} 22:37, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

The problem is that these photos need two licences: a free photo licence and a non-free licence for the product you took a photo of. The free licence is missing. --Stefan2 (talk) 23:36, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Hi there, I'm posting here rather than on Commons, in part because this page is more current than your Commons talk page and in (much larger) part because I hardly ever read my Commons talk page. I posted recently on the Commons discussion for File:Bhagat Singh 1922.jpg. I tend to agree with your remarks there (and you can read my reply there as well), however, I have more general questions about PD-India and PD-India-URAA.

• I understand that a picture can go on Commons only when it satisfies the conditions for both tags. That, in my interpretation, means it should have been in the public domain in India prior to 1996, which in turn means (according to Indian Handbook of Copyright Law (see Terms of Copyright)), that should have been published in India at least 60 years earlier (ie. before 1936). Yet, the Wikipedia:Non-U.S. copyrights page says: "60 pma; photographs 60 pd; 50 pma (death before 1941); 50 pd (photos before 1941); 50 pr (photos before 1908)" It cites two links both of which are dead. I can't seem to figure out where the "1941" is coming from. It is not in the Indian Copyright Handbook, as far as I can tell.
• Regardless of 1936 or 1941, it seems there are some India-related images on Commons that satisfy neither. For example, Subhas Chandra Bose escaped from India in 1941, spent a couple of years in Nazi Germany attempting to receive German support for his plans for liberating India, turned up in Singapore (then under Japanese occupation), and took over the leadership of an unorganized army in the second half of 1943. Both the following pictures: File:Subhas Bose.jpg, File:Netaji Subhas Chandra Bose and Members of the Azad Hind Fauj - 1940's.jpg were taken between July 1943 and August 1945, when he died. They are however both on Commons.
• I have updated the book information on: File:19430428 japanese submarine crew i-29.png. So it was not published before 1956 (at least the book was not); whether it was officially taken by the Government of Japan or casually by someone in the submarine crew is not so clear. Regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 22:55, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
  • Indian rules for photos are a bit confusing. Unless I have misunderstood anything, this is what happened:

According to the Copyright Act of 1914, photos entered the public domain 50 years after they were taken.

According to the Copyright Act of 1957, photos entered the public domain 50 years after they were published. Photos taken before 1908 had already entered the public domain under the previous law and remained in the public domain even if unpublished.

Copyright extension on 1 January 1992: all works (not only photos) had the copyright term extended by 10 years, unless already in the public domain.

This is what gives you the extra complexity at Wikipedia:Non-U.S. copyrights. Also, what Commons cares about is the country of first publication. A photo may have been taken in India but first published outside India, which means that Commons uses the laws of some other country instead. --Stefan2 (talk) 23:32, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

I see. Thanks, btw, for the clear and concise explanation. So, for a picture to be in PD-India-URAA, the key dates are: 1908 (if taken before that date in India) and 1941 (if published before that date in India). In other words, a picture first published in 1943 in India qualifies for PD-India, but not for PD-India-URAA (since it was not in public domain in India on 1 January 1996). Am I right? Fowler&fowler«Talk» 23:55, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Yes. And if a photo wasn't in the public domain in India in 1996, then it is treated as unfree on Wikipedia and isn't accepted on Commons as it is still copyrighted in USA. --Stefan2 (talk) 10:15, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Would you like to weigh in at Wikipedia_talk:Noticeboard_for_India-related_topics#Image_tags_and_other_issues_with_India-related_images where I made a post. (I think I may have made it too complicated! :) ) Fowler&fowler«Talk» 19:09, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

File:1929 Sidney Reginald Daniels.jpg‎ You have recently added this message to a file I uploaded; "This non-free media file should be replaced with a smaller version to comply with Wikipedia's non-free content policy and United States copyright law."

The copyright holder has issued me with a license to use this file, the terms of which I linked to the page; http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/3.0/ It states - "No Derivative Works — You may not alter, transform, or build upon this work." The copyright holder has different sized versions of this image. The one they wished to make available for use under license was this size.

I do not want to be in breach of my license by altering the size of the image to suit wikipedia policy as you suggest. I would be grateful for your comments.

I also note that you have recently deleted this image from 2 of the 3 pages where I had placed it because 'no appropriate rationale was appended'. I have read through wikipedia guidelines on how to append a rationale, however I have not located in these instructions exactly where a rationale should be appended and would welcome your help.Graemp (talk) 07:44, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Non-free files should be of low resolution per WP:NFCC#3b. I'm not sure if it is a good idea to reduce files under nonderivative licences, though, as this reduces the possibilities for people to use the image. Maybe it should be discussed at WT:NFC...

If I remember correctly, the image additionally violated WP:NFCC#8 in the other articles, so readding it there is a bad idea. --Stefan2 (talk) 10:18, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Hi Stefan2/Graemp! WP:NFCC#3b does not define low-resolution and in this case I believe that NPG consider 800px/72dpi as low res (as its not enough for most print/commercial applications). They consider the high-resolution as 2400px/300dpi. As Graemp noted, the license having 'No Derivative Works' would I think preclude resizing - especially as often when people resize they unintentially remove the meta data (which includes a lot of NPG information) - Maybe it would help if, on the file pages, rather than linking the creative the commons url the NPG url for the use of that image was linked? That would show both the licence and the terms of 800px - i.e. in this case: http://www.npg.org.uk/collections/search/use-this-image.php?mkey=mw175921 Cheers KylieTastic (talk) 14:18, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

On Wikipedia, "low resolution" typically means "not bigger than needed for Wikipedia". 800 pixels is usually a lot more than needed for Wikipedia. In the article, the largest side of the image is 299 pixels. --Stefan2 (talk) 14:37, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

This file was uploaded with permission of owner. Information of copyright is on page. Information was sent last year. Please take this file off of the list of possibly unfree files. JohnKeble (talk) 17:33, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

The file name you quoted above is incorrect. There is a typo in it or something. I have replied on your talk page. --Stefan2 (talk) 19:29, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

File name has been corrected. The image talk page says right on it that the image was released into the public domain by the owner so it seems nothing else needs to be done. JohnKeble (talk) 20:44, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

The problem is that there is no evidence that it has been released to the public domain. --Stefan2 (talk) 21:47, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

Hello,

I received an e-mail stating this file is listed as possibly not being free. I have permission from the author of the diagram (Prof. Nelly Pitteloud) who has allowed its free and full use in the public domain. I have submitted this e-mail in the past and on the file's page there is a note saying the e-mail has been received. Please could you let me know what else I need to do to prove that the author is happy for this file to be used freely & openly Thank you. Neilsmith38 (talk) 02:18, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

The file was in a category of files for which the OTRS team has been waiting for permission since last year. Maybe this means that the permission never was sent or that it was missed. I suggest that you send it again, or failing that, ask at WP:OTRS/N. --Stefan2 (talk) 14:03, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

I had permission by the organisers' media team to use this photo. ~~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by HealthSX (talk • contribs) 13:57, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Please ask the copyright holder to follow the instructions at WP:CONSENT so that the permission can be verified by others. --Stefan2 (talk) 14:00, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Dear Stefan2, I received a message from you that this image might not be free. I sent an email to permissions-en@wikimedia.org using the standard template stating that I am the owner of the image and that I release it under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0. Is this sufficient for Wikipedia to allow this image?? Is there anything else I need to do? I'm sorry for all these questions, but I am new to Wikipedia and sometimes I get a bit lost especially when it comes to copyrights for images. I appreciate your comments so far. Thanks, Sautekai (talk) 17:10, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Hey, I figured you'd be interested in Wikipedia:Village pump (idea lab)/Archive 12#Disallow non-free SVGs. Sven Manguard Wha? 18:25, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Just wanted to let you know that I opened a WP:PUF discussion here about a photo that was discussed at Wikipedia:Non-free content review‎ that you nominated there. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 20:05, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

From DryMartini99 Hello Stefan2

This is regarding File:Crossflow configuration for microfiltration-PNG.png file I uploaded as part of my educational assessment.

This file was made by one of my group members and hence does not come under an official license, it was reproduced with the creator's permission and his name is on the page. With all rights reserved.

I request that you do not delete this file, however if there is some details which are missing I would be more than happy to fill them in. However Wikipedia does not seems to have a avenue for diagrams which are self drawn my students. Can you advise?

Thank You. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DryMartini99 (talk • contribs) 13:43, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

"All rights reserved" is not acceptable for this kind of images. Images like this need to be available under a free licence. A free licence is one meeting freedomdefined:definition, which "all rights reserved" does not. --Stefan2 (talk) 14:06, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

This image has been described more fully and a note has been made regarding its historical importance to qualify as a non-free image. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 15:12, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

It didn't have a non-free copyright tag. See WP:NFCC#10b. --Stefan2 (talk) 15:20, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Hi! Thanks for the notice. I uploaded this pic when I was a newbie to Wikipedia and had no real knowledge about licences and such stuff. As much as I could remember, I probably transferred it from the Turkish Wikipedia and thought it is ok here if it was ok there... I totally forgot about this picture, to be honest. I think it can be deleted and I think it is high time for me to review my early uploads and clean them up. Thanks again, Kind regards Teemeah ^{편지 (letter)} 21:04, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

No problem! Tag it with ((db-g7)) if you wish. Otherwise, it might be easier to simply wait for a week until the ((subst:npd)) expires. --Stefan2 (talk) 21:06, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

There appears to be no discussion page about the nomination for deletion of this file. As the entry for it states, permission to use it was given by the copyright holder and forwarded to the address mentioned. Could you please explain on my talk page what more needed to be done? Mzilikazi1939 (talk) 17:43, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

The discussion is at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files/2013 October 16#File:Spode Platter Aesop.jpg. The permission on the file information page is insufficient. Please ask the copyright holder to follow the instructions at WP:CONSENT. Note that there are two copyrights: the photographer's copyright and the plate designer's copyright. --Stefan2 (talk) 17:47, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. Obviously it ought not to be on Commons. The plate dates from 1831, so the designer has long been dead. I've reloaded the file on English WP now, so please go ahead and delete it from Commons. Mzilikazi1939 (talk) 19:13, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Please do not repost files, fix the first upload instead. I have nominated the most recent upload for speedy deletion as a duplicate so that we don't lose the original upload history. Also, none of the files is on Commons. --Stefan2 (talk) 20:00, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Like another of your correspondants here, I am reluctant to trouble any further the person who gave me permission to use the file. I did everything I was asked to back then and am discouraged by your unhelpful attitude. Perhaps you should consider trying to enter into the feelings of those less technically minded than yourself. Mzilikazi1939 (talk) 21:47, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

The problem is that you didn't do everything you were supposed to do back then. You obtained a Wikipedia-only permission and stated what the permission was on the file information page. You were supposed to obtain a permission which allows anyone to use the photo, and the copyright holder was supposed to send his permission to OTRS per the instructions at WP:CONSENT so that people can verify that the permission comes from the right place. It is unfortunate that it took some time before your mistakes were discovered. --Stefan2 (talk) 22:00, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Hi there, I'm not sure the best way to handle this with the least amount of confusion and complication for the artist who granted permission for use of this image on Wikipedia. Perhaps someone more knowledgeable with regards to such things could contact him? His email address is: brianexton (AT) talktalk (DOT) net --Thoric (talk) 18:46, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

The easiest way to do it is to simply tell the copyright holder to fill in the form at WP:CONSENT and send that to permissions-en@wikimedia.org. --Stefan2 (talk) 20:04, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Replaceable fair use File:Davies High School building, Fargo , ND.jpg[edit]

Replaceable fair use File:Fargo North High School building in Fargo, ND.jpg[edit]

Replaceable fair use File:Fargo South High School building, Fargo, ND.jpg[edit]

Stefan2: thanks for your assistance with my uploaded photo files. I do not think I tagged the files properly for no-free/copywrite use at upload, but don't understand how to change their status now. I am new to my position, so this is the first time I have done anything on Wikipedia, which compounded the issue at hand! The 3 photo files I uploaded are all photos taken by the Fargo Public Schools (essentially I represent FPS in my job) as the photogrpaher, owned by the Fargo Public Schools, and of Fargo Public Schools buildings.

Can you help me retag these files appropriately? Thank you. Fargo Public Schools (talk) 19:08, 16 October 2013 (UTC)Fargo Public SchoolsFargo Public Schools (talk) 19:08, 16 October 2013 (UTC) (Lisa) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fargo Public Schools (talk • contribs)

The photos are marked as unfree. Wikipedia doesn't accept unfree photos of buildings which still exist, see WP:NFC#UUI §1. If the copyright holder agrees, they can be licensed under some free licence. See WP:CONSENT for instructions. --Stefan2 (talk) 20:11, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

The permission to publish the file was given me by the owner Manuel Bastioni and was confirmed to Wikipedia team with an email sent on 06 Oct. If you want confirmation you can write to info@makehuman.org — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dc.alessandra (talk • contribs) 21:34, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Please simply delete my file File:The Wikinauts on Seriphos.jpg - I don't need that any more. --Wikinaut (talk) 15:25, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Hi Stefan, it's Maodhóg again. I uploaded File:Halloween Sweden.png, File:Halloween Bangladesh.jpg, File:Halloween India.jpg, File:Hallowmas Slovakia.png, and File:Vigil of All Hallows, St. George's Episcopal Church (2010).jpg, as you know. Because you told me to do so, I forwarded all the emails from the authors/owners of those photographs stating that I was allowed to use them on Wikipedia. Do the authors/owners also need to state (in their emails) that they are releasing their photographs into public domain or is it simply enough to state that the photographs are allowed to appear on Wikipedia? If you have an email address I could send the emails to you so you could see that they're okay. Maodhóg (talk) 18:16, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) It's not enough that there is permission for use on Wikipedia; the owners need to make the images available under the terms of the CC-BY-SA license (and, if the owner is the sole owner, the GFDL also), according to Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. Of course, releasing things into the public domain (or with any license that's strictly more permissive than CC-BY-SA + GFDL) works too. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 18:36, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Writ Keeper, I appreciate you attending to my question. Is it sufficient for the author of the photograph to send me an email stating that they've released the photograph into public domain? I can then forward this email to the permissions committee. Maodhóg (talk) 18:54, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Also, could I forward the emails to you so you can see if they're OK or not? Do you have an email address I can reach you at? Maodhóg (talk) 19:02, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

To show you an example of the body of the emails that I have sent, I have used this:

Dear Mr. XYZ,

Thanks for your willingness to let Wikipedia host your photograph! In order to keep and use the photograph on Wikipedia, you will need to release that photograph into public domain. I would just need you to reply to this email stating that the photograph is public domain and therefore is permissible to use in Wikipedia. I appreciate all your help throughout this process - you've been great!

Sincerely,

Maodhóg

For a reply, I have received emails from the author like this:

That photo is now public domain and can be used by Wikipedia.

In turn, I have forwarded those emails to the Permissions Committee of Wikipedia with the following message:

Dear Permissions Committee of Wikipedia,

This message is to inform you that File:Halloween_Sweden.png on English Wikipedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Halloween_Sweden.png) has been released into public domain by its author, Mr. XYZ. The photograph has a public domain sticker that reflects this licensing information. If you scroll, below, I have forwarded you the email from Mr. XYZ as evidence of the public domain release.

Sincerely,

Maodhóg

Does that suffice? Maodhóg (talk) 19:06, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Yes, that should be okay, as long as you've sent the entirety of the correspondence in the forwarded email to permissions-enwikimedia.org, which is the email address for the OTRS team that handles these types of things. (There's nothing at Wikipedia actually called the "Permissions Committee", but they're close enough). I actually happen to be on the OTRS team; I'm on the road today, but I'll look into it when I get a chance if nobody else has already by then. (OTRS can be slow at times, so sometimes you just have to be patient.) Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 19:23, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Writ Keeper: Thanks for handling this for me.

Maodhóg: Yes, that should be fine, provided that you include the full e-mails. If something is unclear, the people who handle the e-mails will probably contact you. --Stefan2 (talk) 20:23, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks guys! The emails should be in the OTRS mailbox! :) Maodhóg (talk) 17:48, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Hi Stefan, I just want you to know that I really trust you in this issue. When it comes to these things you have an excellent insight. My main concern is the "toy" thing and since life is a continuous learning experience I want to hear the opinion of a Wikipedian who is a lawyer and an expert. Once I hear from him and if I am wrong in my assumption, I will proceed to delete the image. No, hard feelings on my side since I have said before, I admire your work here. Tony the Marine (talk) 19:49, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

That's fine. I don't think that we are in a hurry. I think that there are several issues here:

• The photo shows various objects, such as houses and cars and trains. Toys are generally copyrightable, and I remember that a lot of photos of Barbie dolls were deleted for that reason some time ago. On the other hand, utilitarian objects are explicitly exempt from copyright in the United States, so a real car or a real train isn't copyrighted. The special case of models of utilitarian objects is discussed at Commons:User:Elcobbola/Models, but there is also s:Meshwerks, Inc. v. Toyota Motor Sales U.S.A., Inc. which suggests that such models aren't always copyrighted. I have just raised a question at Commons:User talk:Elcobbola/Models#s:Meshwerks, Inc. v. Toyota Motor Sales U.S.A., Inc. about this. Maybe it means that copyright only is given due to things inside the toys, since it is mainly the inside which is different. On a photo, you only see the outside of the toy.
• The image is a nice photo of the entire railway system, but you can't easily see any individual toy, and if you can't see the artistic aspects of a toy, then you can hardly claim that you are infringing the copyright of the toy.
• If a photo like this contains lots of different objects, it is typically assumed that the objects are de minimis. This application of de minimis appears to be based mainly or exclusively on French law, and it is possible that courts might rule differently in other countries. According to French law, you can't take a photo of a building unless the building's architect has been dead for at least 70 years (a problem you don't have in the United States), but if you take a photo of a whole city with lots of different buildings, then the buildings were found to be de minimis as the photo didn't focus on any particular building. Compare with the examples from Dubai at Commons:COM:DM#Examples. Dubai has the same problem with photos of buildings as France. As the photo doesn't focus on any particular toy, this strengthens the idea that the copyright of the individual toys isn't violated.
• Someone has decided where all of the tracks, houses and other things should be, and I think that this is the only problem here. The person who placed all those things on that table (or whatever it is) can almost certainly claim copyright for that. The railway system was probably constructed by a club member, and it is unlikely that the club member would mind that people distribute photos of the railway system. If you could somehow obtain an OTRS ticket from that club member, then I think that the photo can be kept. --Stefan2 (talk) 20:56, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

You have tagged File:Croftpyramidcb.jpg and File:DavidBoadella.jpg - both uploaded by me - because you perceive errors in their licensing.

I obtained permission from copyright holders before I uploaded them, but that is several years ago. Since they have been in use for a long time I had thought they were properly annotated. *Please contact me and indicate exactly what short-comings you perceive.* The tag you have used does not do this - for example, it asks for fair use rationales, when these have been provided.

You will understand that such demands, long after upload, are bound to create significant and unnecessary problems - people die, web-sites disappear, and permissions gained then (by email from a different computer in this case) may no longer be available. The editor who uploaded may even have left the project.

Therefore, I ask again, please clearly state your exact reasons for tagging and your exact requirement, referring to policy. Thanks Redheylin (talk) 03:36, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

The procedure is to ask the photographer to e-mail OTRS per the instructions at WP:CONSENT. Alternatively, if the source website states that the images are available under some free licence, linking to that website is enough. It is unfortunate that your errors from 2008 weren't discovered until now. --Stefan2 (talk) 08:33, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Stefan - as I say, I myself obtained permission by email. Both photo owners were very happy to have their images used. I consulted at the time and understood that the ordinary principle of good faith, along with our common work towards excellence and information on Wikipedia, meant that my testimony was sufficient. So I do not think it an error, unless policy has changed? Redheylin (talk) 16:49, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Since 2006 (or so), the policy has been that the copyright holder needs to send permission to OTRS so that it can be verified that the uploader does have permission to upload the photo and that the permission is sufficient. For example, people sometimes get a permission which only applies to Wikipedia, and this is insufficient, as Wikipedia requires a permission which permits anyone to use the image (see for example mailarchive:wikien-l/2005-May/023760.html). Uploaders are usually notified of their mistakes shortly after uploading a file, but unfortunately some files slip through and aren't spotted until several years later. This is what happened to you. --Stefan2 (talk) 23:32, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

To tell the truth, even on occasions when I have made it clear that the image would be entering into the public domain and forwarded the agreement to the relevant address, I have never received any acknowledgement and media have still been removed. Even when uploading my own work and declared it as such I have been met with straightforward accusations of bad faith. Similarly, new pages get deleted even when suitably tagged while notability criteria etc. are added. I think this kind of thing accounts for the massive loss of dedicated editors who have no interest in dealing with hostile, long-lasting inquisitions of editors who make thousands of "policy" edits but never, apparently, do anything constructive. Redheylin (talk) 01:04, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

If you have had files deleted despite mailing OTRS, then it would appear that the permission is inssufficient, that it isn't clear which file(s) the permission applies to or that you missed to mark the files with ((OTRS pending)). If a file is unexpectedly deleted, try asking at WP:OTRS/N for assistance. --Stefan2 (talk) 13:29, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

I've seen that you've left me a message – Speedy deletion nomination of File:Hatirjheel map.png – on my talk page. Well I've seen that you've deleted the File:Hatirjheel map.png. Now tell me, where can I collect a map for Hatirjheel which wouldn't violate the copyright policy of Wikipedia? And may I remove the message you've sent me from my talk page?
— ITeachThem (talk) 08:17, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

File:Hatirjheel map.png was deleted as the file is a copyright violation of Google Maps. You can get freely licensed maps from Openstreetmap which you can tag using Commons:Template:OpenStreetMap. --Stefan2 (talk) 08:29, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Thank you very much for the aid. I'll get a map from the given link as soon as possible. If I get stuck anywhere, I'll tell you. — ITeachThem (talk) 08:37, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Please don't move the talk pages of files destined for F8 deletion. The deleting admin can move it without leaving an unneeded redirect, and it automatically gets tagged ((G8-exempt)) as part if the process. Thank you, -- Diannaa (talk) 03:41, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

I have sometimes seen admins deleting talk pages instead of moving them (although they aren't supposed to do this), and I hoped that moving them myself would prevent deletion of the talk pages. It seemed extra important to keep the talk pages in these cases since there was a lot of discussion on the talk pages. I don't think that talk pages for files on Commons need to be tagged with ((G8-exempt)) as I think that the bot which generates a database report of orphaned talk pages checks whether there is a file on Commons under the same name. --Stefan2 (talk) 13:27, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

The instructions specifically call for admins to move these talk pages rather than delete them, and the instructions specifically call for the use of the G8-exempt template. If you move these talk pages, you are creating extra work for admins, because if the talk page is moved at the time the file is deleted, the talk page can be moved in a couple of mouse clicks, without leaving a redirect, and with the automatic addition of the G8-exempt template. If you move the talk page, the redirect has to be deleted and the template has to be added, creating extra work for the already overworked administrator. I guess I am asking you to trust that administrators are doing their jobs correctly and that you do not have to do this task in expectation that they are going to do it incorrectly. -- Diannaa (talk) 23:24, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

Hi Stefan, the copyright status and source is actually very clearly stated on this image's page. Thanks. Omnibus (talk) 16:05, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

The problem is that there is no way to verify that the stated permission is valid. The file was later overwritten by another file whose source and copyright status is unknown. --Stefan2 (talk) 16:41, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

Oh okay, I see. I uploaded both files from the same source, photographer Mike Ingalls of TheSabre.com, who approved that copyright notice for both photos (and every UVA-related photograph from TheSabre.com, for which he is the sole photographer). Omnibus (talk) 17:18, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

Hi Stefan, I've added more information regarding the character rising notability of the subject, it's very popular photography object, you can check Flickr and Deviantart results. Hope it's fine now. If not please help to add more information. --UrSuS (talk) 13:36, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Thank you, Stefan2, for fixing the resolution and metadata at File:Torre dei Becci, June 2013.jpg. I learn something new everyday! – Paine Ellsworth ^CLIMAX! 14:59, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Hi. You tagged this screenshot for resolution reduction. I'm happy to do that. However, the image already has a several fold resolution reduction from the DVD, based on its .jpg size of 50 kb. I should have made an effort to quantify this when I uploaded it, but I didn't make the .jpg myself and I don't know exactly. What is the quantitative criterion - the nominal width in pixels? thanks, Easchiff (talk) 17:35, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

I think that it is unnecessarily large for the moment. I wouldn't bother about reducing it manually; a bot handles JPG reduction requests once per day. --Stefan2 (talk) 21:49, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

OK. I'll wait & see what the bot does. Easchiff (talk) 22:02, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Hey there, believe it or not, wanted to say thanks for the notice on my talk page concerning the fair use of the Beckley Feed jpg file. I have contacted the wikimedia folks with the e mail of the owner sttaing that I may use this with his permission. Additionally, the OTRS tag has been added to the file page. PLEASE DO let me know if there is ANY thing else I can do.Coal town guy (talk) 18:11, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

The building was demolished and the new McDonalds is on the way. DELETE IT, I could not care less. I am in the process of taking care of things I can preserve. Coal town guy (talk) 20:52, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

So you just go around destroying other people's efforts of completing half-done wikipedia pages? Go away. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sendu1984 (talk • contribs) 01:39, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Why is lyrics is copyright and the link is WP:LINKVIO. Who told you that? If the author died in 1989 do we have to wait until which year? If it's copyrighted in the US is not possible. 64.231.144.111 (talk) 00:28, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

In USA, the copyright expires 95 years after the lyrics were first published. See Commons:COM:HIRTLE. In North Korea, the copyright expires 50 years after the death of Pak Seyŏng. --Stefan2 (talk) 00:53, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

I'm not familiar with the format used in Wikipedia:Possibly_unfree_files/2013_October_13#OTRS_pending_since_October_2012

I just processed a ticket for File:St. Mary's Church Interior.jpg and added a note. Should I have removed it from the list? Or added a template?--SPhilbrick(Talk) 15:09, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

I found a couple of files which were awaiting permission since last year, so I took them all to PUF as it seemed unlikely that OTRS would have a backlog which is that big. It seems that this made some uploaders finally send permission to OTRS. I added <s></s> around this file name. --Stefan2 (talk) 15:14, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

OK Thanks, I searched a couple others, and found nothing.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 15:25, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Hi Stefan2, You have marked many of the photos that I have uploaded as copyright infringements. Can you please tell me why are they copyright infringements?

I checked this but didn't understand why my photos are marked.Just A Common Guy (talk) 16:29, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

See Commons:COM:NETCOPYRIGHT. The images appear elsewhere on the Internet and you didn't provide any credible evidence that you are the photographer. For that reason, many of your files were nominated for speedy deletion. If you did take them, then please provide evidence of this, per the instructions at WP:IOWN. --Stefan2 (talk) 16:53, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Okay, I have read through quite a lot of articles on Wikipedia. I accept File:BruceTemkinPhoto.jpg is a copyright infringements. I am not much familiar with the guidelines here. I had a photo of this guy that I had taken, but that photo wasn't good. So I uploaded this one. I am sorry. Please mark this as candidate for speedy deletion. I want to upload the other photo of him that I have - the not so good one. May I do that? also File:JerryCarrollComedian.jpg is also an infringement, I have his photo too - again not so good one. But now I know it's not about good looking photos but about copyrights. Should I wait for you to delete these files before uploading my pictures File:Doug Lipp Photo.jpg is my own photo, I have cropped, I can send you the original photo if you want.Just A Common Guy (talk)

I have tagged File:BruceTemkinPhoto.jpg and File:BruceTemkinPhoto.jpg as copyright violations, so they will probably be deleted soon.

If you took File:Doug Lipp Photo.jpg yourself, then it is fine. The easiest way to show the entire photo may be to upload it to Wikipedia. --Stefan2 (talk) 21:20, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Here is the photo on Wikimedia.Just A Common Guy (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 12:53, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

	Watcher
	Thanks for helping me with this. It may need to be looked at in the originating Wikipedia. Petercannon usf (talk) 16:36, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

You're welcome. I don't speak Bosnian, and I don't know how to report any copyright problems on Bosnian Wikipedia. --Stefan2 (talk) 16:55, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Have you taken this off the list? It seems to have OK'ed copyright according to the file description. maxrspct ping me 23:45, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

It says that the permission only applies to Wikipedia, which is insufficient. See ((db-f3)). If you can obtain a more general permission, then please follow the instructions at WP:CONSENT. --Stefan2 (talk) 10:17, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Hi Stefan,

Thank you for carefully considering my uploads. Can you please clarify why you are objecting to the copyright status of these images? I have attached a permission file for each. If I am not uploading these files correctly, please explain because I have received permission to use each one. Thank you. jjkutch — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jjkutch (talk • contribs) 19:59, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Okay ... I see they need to be not for Wikipedia only. These are some of my first uploads -- Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jjkutch (talk • contribs) 20:08, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Hi Stefan - what is the proper procedure after I link to new files indicating un-restricted permission to use the images? Do I simply delete the tag that you left disputing the image status, or is there something different I need to do? Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jjkutch (talk • contribs) 20:17, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

If you can get a proper permission, then you should follow the procedure at WP:CONSENT. --Stefan2 (talk) 20:51, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

The authorized representative of my department that holds the copyright is sending the email described on WP:CONSENT to permissions-en@wikimedia.org. Is there anything else that needs to be done? Once the email is received and verified, are the deletion flags removed from the images? Thanks. Jjkutch (talk) 22:46, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

I have added the tag ((OTRS pending)) to all of the files. This tells people that permission has been sent and that we are waiting for someone to handle the e-mail. --Stefan2 (talk) 21:04, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

He died in 1999. I can't take a photo of him I used the public one that was in my high school yearbook Bwmoll3 (talk) 21:09, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

If you don't belive me, here is his obituary Bwmoll3 (talk) 21:11, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

I have not done anything with File:Clifford S. Bartholomew - Allentown Mayor.jpg as far as I can see. However, I see that the fair use rationale is for the article List of mayors of Allentown, Pennsylvania, where the image can't be used because of WP:NFCC#3a and WP:NFCC#8. It is not an article about any specific mayor, so it isn't essential to show a picture of any of them. --Stefan2 (talk) 21:26, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Hello Stefan. I uploaded the image on the page of the college but received your message that it has been designated as Possibly Unfree Image. Let me tell you the scenario so that you can guide me best in this regard.The image to the date is NOT protected by any copyright law but i have applied to the concerned authorities to get it copyright in my favor. What can be done in this situation? Najamnawaz (talk) 07:46, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

The problem is that there is no evidence that the image isn't protected by copyright. See WP:CONSENT in case you have evidence that it isn't protected by copyright. --Stefan2 (talk) 20:55, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

You're right, that album cover shouldn't have been at Zang Tianshuo bio, it should have been in a standalone album article Wo zhe shinian. I must have been half-asleep when I did that. I've changed over the direction of the link to the album article and deleted image link from the bio. Do I need to anything else? I haven't answered the template at File:Zang Tianshuo Wo zhe shinian.jpg, since I can't, the template is correct and image should be deleted if staying at bio not album - but now it isn't. What's the correct way to proceed? In ictu oculi (talk) 17:18, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

The file File:Zang Tianshuo Wo zhe shinian.jpg now seems to be used correctly, so I removed the tag. It seems that the album article didn't exist when I tagged the file. --Stefan2 (talk) 17:25, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, No it didn't, I assume I had a mental glitsch and seeing the jpg went away remembering I'd created the album, I hadn't. In ictu oculi (talk) 17:53, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Hi, you listed this for deletion due to the possibility of a non-free equivalent as far as I can tell, can you tell me where you've found such an image as I can't find one. Samwalton9 (talk) 22:23, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

The person is still alive. Free images can therefore be created. See WP:NFC#UUI §1. --Stefan2 (talk) 23:15, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Nominating images with fair use descriptions is one of the things you do here. I am sure all those efforts were made completely in good faith. Having looked into WP:NFCC, and discussions of the meaning of fair use, I'd like to discuss with you a concern I have that some suggestions that fair use images don't belong here seem to be based on a misinterpretation of the principle of fair use.

It seems to me that we need to remember why States grant limited protections to those who create intellectual property. States grant those limited protections because progress is supposed to be a good thing, and those who create intellectual property should thus be rewarded. Copyright, patents, are supposed to serve the public good.

The principle of fair use allows for exceptions to the limited protections granted to intellectual property creators. There are rare exceptional instances where allowing third parties to use image or text that would normally be protected is seen as also being in the public good.

There have been discussions I have participated in where those arguing for the deletion of fair use images have argued that our use of those images could detract from the ability of the owners of the intellectual property rights to reap profits from those images.

But it seems to me that the legislation on fair use says that in those relatively rare instances where fair use applies the benefit to the public over-rides the protections granted to intellectual property right owners.

I think it is important to remember that both those limited protections and fair use are based on the idea they benefit the public. Fair use benefits the public directly. The limited protections granted to intellectual property right holders benefit the public indirectly.

Am I correct that you have been one of those who has asserted that impeding intellectual property rights owners ability to profit from their images has to override any fair use use? If so I would particularly appreciate you giving thought to this matter. Geo Swan (talk) 03:24, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

If you wish to use a verbatim copy of an article in the United States, then no, I don't see how non-free content would prevent you from using the article, provided that all fair use claims are valid. However, it may cause extra trouble for reusers who wish to make changes to an article. For example, let's say that you only are interested in one of the sections in an article. Can you then keep the images in the section, or can they only be used in the context of the other section? This probably varies a lot from article to article.

I think that a big problem with WP:C and WP:NFCC is that the pages only speak about the United States. A potential way for reusers to use Wikipedia articles is to simply press the print button in your web browser and print a verbatim copy of the article which is then distributed to other people. According to this page, only 41% of the users of English Wikipedia are in the United States, so 59% of the users may be unable to use verbatim copies of Wikipedia articles from English Wikipedia. For example, Canada, India and the United Kingdom each represent more than 5% of the Wikipedia users, and users in those countries can't always use Wikipedia content. The ability to create derivative works of Wikipedia articles is one thing, but one should also consider that many potential reusers want to get some quick information and that they don't have the time to modify the data – the right to use unaltered copies is also important.

I'm wondering if the way to go isn't instead to modify WP:C and WP:NFCC to respect the laws of more countries, to increase the potential reuse of Wikipedia. Note that wmf:Resolution:Licensing policy tells that a project should respect "United States law and the law of countries where the project content is predominantly accessed" and that mailarchive:wikien-l/2005-August/027373.html tells that "Fair use doctrine is significantly better in the US than in other jurisdictions, which is a fine thing, but German Wikipedia, for example, follows more restrictive German law on this point. Why? Because part of our goal is re-use in Germany." I am not sure if English Wikipedia is following those ideas by ignoring the copyright laws of for example the United Kingdom (10% of the project's users). --Stefan2 (talk) 14:31, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

• Thanks for your reply.

With regard to fair-use images causing trouble for re-users. Don't re-users always have to understand the licensing of an image when they consider re-using it?

If I made a fair-use claim as to why an image should be used in an article, or several related articles, and some other en.wiki contributor likes the image, and wants to use it on another en.wiki article, where the fair-use rationale I drafted doesn't apply, they either have to make an alternative fair use rationale, or live with not being allowed to re-use the image. This has always been true.

Any one of our readers, who likes one of our images, and wants to re-use it on a non-WMF site, has an obligation to understand its licensing. If it was uploaded to the WMF site under a GFDL, CC, or other free license, the non-WMF re-user has an obligation to understand that license, and abide by its terms. Do we have an obligation to police whether re-users comply with those free licenses? I don't think so. If an re-user didn't bother complying with the terms of the license, I think the only party with standing to mount a legal challenge would be the copyright owner. I suggest to you that the situation is basically the same for fair use images -- if our fair-use claim was legally defensible, and one of our readers re-used that image without a meaningful, valid, fair-use assertion, we would not have standing to try to police their re-use, and we would have no responsibility for their re-use. Legal challenges would be the sole responsibility of the copyright holder.

• In the second paragraph of your reply you wrote about en.wiki readers who print out unaltered wikipedia articles, and give them to third (fourth?) parties, without clarifying the license status of the images used on those pages. Realistically, printouts can't be cut and paste into new documents. Wouldn't all the images on any printout of a wikipedia article be considered de minimus? I've uploaded eleven years of the weekly newspaper published by GIs, for GIs, at Guantanamo. Most of those several hundred issues include a review of whatever new movie is playing at the base's movie theatre. Invariably that newspaper includes a promotional image from the film's distributors. Do they have permission to re-use the distributors promotional images? (1) probably not; (2) it is not really our business. There was a nomination to delete all those hundreds of issues, because they each had one page that had an article that included one or two promotional images we weren't licensed to re-use. Some contributors suggested the issues could be kept, so long as all the promotional images from film distributors were blanked out (which, of course, would have represented hundreds of hours of work). But, in the end, reason prevailed, and the consensus was that the promotional images were de minimus. If that reasoning was correct, then I suggest anyone who prints out a wikipedia article should be able to regard the images in that article as de minimus.
• You think an initiative should be initiated to convince the en.wiki community, to place further restrictions on fair use images -- "to increase the potential reuse of Wikipedia."

I looked at wmf:Resolution:Licensing policy, could you please clarify how you think that applies here?

I looked at Fair dealing in United Kingdom law. You wrote: "I am not sure if English Wikipedia is following those ideas by ignoring the copyright laws of for example the United Kingdom." So who is suggesting ignoring the copyright laws of the UK or other commonwealth countries? Geo Swan (talk) 23:39, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

If you wish to use a copy of an article, then yes, you have to understand how GFDL and CC-BY-SA work. This requirement always applies, and there is no way to get away from it. If you wish to use an article containing a non-free image in the United States, then you would only have to note that the image is used under a fair use claim. If you wish to alter an article which contains fair use images, then you suddenly need a lot of knowledge about complex legal matters when using fair use images (or the reuser could simply choose to remove all of the non-free images), but this extra knowledge isn't needed for using the freely licensed parts of the article. This makes it slightly more difficult for USA reusers to modify articles which contain fair use images. Not sure if this can be seen as a problem for us.

De minimis: I don't know how the it is defined in the laws of other countries, but the Swedish law defines de minimis as the inclusion of an image in another image or in a film, provided that the included image is insignificant to the larger image or film. You can't, for example, include images in text. I would not think of a printout of an article as an "image". It may contain images, but the textual parts are clearly not images. There is also the requirement that the small parts must be unimportant to the image as a whole. This would seem to mean that the images mustn't be related to the text. On the other hand, WP:IUP tells that you only should use images which in some way are related to the text. For example, there was a case in Sweden about a thumbnail screenshot of a website displaying photos. The photos on the screenshot weren't de minimis because a purpose of the screenshot was to show how the website displayed photos. Instead, for Wikipedia images, a reuser would need a different defence. I assume that a UK fair dealing defence can be used sometimes although probably not always, but I don't know exactly how permissive the British law is.

The idea of ignoring the copyright laws of the Commonwealth is for example established in WP:NFC#UUI §9 where it says that you shouldn't use photos of copyrighted statues from countries without freedom of panorama. Instead, people are directed to WP:NFCI §10. Photos of statues are free in lots of Commonwealth countries due to different FOP laws there, so WP:NFC#UUI §9 combined with WP:NFCI §10 together suggest that articles should be more unfree for Commonwealth users. Also, WP:NFCI §10 seems to be incompatible with the InfoSoc Directive, meaning that verbatim copies of articles using such images can't be distributed anywhere in the European Union (including the UK), preventing lots of reuse of Wikipedia.

Commonwealth law is also ignored by, for example, the treatment of ((Not-PD-US-URAA)) vis-à-vis ((PD-US-no notice)). A ((PD-Canada)) photo from 1948 would be replaced by a 1949 ((PD-US-no notice)) photo by a named photographer who died in 1980 by citing WP:NFCC#1. The ((PD-Canada)) photo is in the public domain in Canada and most of the rest of the world, but not in the United States, as the rule of the shorter term isn't used in the United States. Conversely, the ((PD-US-no notice)) photo is in the public domain in the United States, but Canada doesn't use the rule of the shorter term on US works, so the US photo is copyrighted in Canada until the photographer has been dead for 50 years. In short: WP:NFCC#1 is used to delete content which is free in Canada, replacing it with content which is unfree in Canada.

wmf:Resolution:Licensing policy tells that you should respect "United States law and the law of countries where the project content is predominantly accessed". Wikipedia seems to have decided that Wikipedia predominantly only is accessed from the United States (and not from any other countries), but statistics suggest otherwise, although the exact implications of the word "predominantly" could be debated. --Stefan2 (talk) 00:51, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

• You start off with "If you wish to use a copy of an article, then yes, you have to understand how GFDL and CC-BY-SA work." By article, you mean a wikipedia article, correct? So, if our re-user is a University professor, college instructor, or high school teacher, who prints out all of, or a portion of, a wikipedia article, and hands out a copy of it to his or her students -- it is the individual who makes the copies who has the obligation to understand and comply with any remaining intellectual property rights that are retained -- agreed? And, if someone who owns some of the remaining intellectual property rights thinks their rights have been abridged, it is the individual who made the copy who they should pursue -- not whatever WMF project whose content they copied -- agreed? Haven't WMF lawyers offered the opinion that merely including a list of contributors is sufficient to comply with the obligation to attribute work as per the GFDL or CC? Aren't all the wikipedia mirrors seen to be complying with the GFDL or CC, because their readers are informed the wikipedia is the original source, and they can go to the original wikipedia page to see the contributors.

I am going to repeat a point I already made, that I don't think you have responded to. Every time we include an image in an article that is licensed under the GFDL or CC we are leaving it up to our readers to comply with the terms of that license. Our readers could re-use a GFDL or CC image, without properly attributing it to the photographer, even though our description pages make it pretty easy for them to comply with the license. In those cases it is the re-user the property rights owner has to go after -- not us, because our use of the image was fully license compliant.

The way I see it, when a fair use image is used in one of our articles, in a way that complies with the relevant laws, and with any extra restrictions our policies apply, then the responsibility for how or whether our readers re-use that image lies just as firmly solely with our readers as the responsibility that lies on our readers to comply with the terms of GFDL or CC licenses. So why should we be less trustful of our readers with "fair use" images?

The last two paragraphs of your reply -- maybe I am just not understanding you, but they don't really seem related to fair use. If you think they are related to fair use, could you take another crack at an explanation? Geo Swan (talk) 21:02, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

Hi Stefan, it's Maodhóg again. What are the guidelines for uploading a photograph that depicts souling on Halloween from "St. Nicholas: An Illustrated Magazine for Young Folks", December 1882, p. 93? I found an article on Wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Image_use_policy#Public_domain that says

Images may be placed into the public domain by their creators, or they may be public domain because they are ineligible for copyright or because their copyright expired. In the U.S., copyright has expired on any work published anywhere before January 1, 1923.

Could you let me know how I should go about uploading this photograph? Maodhóg (talk) 17:51, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Since you know the guidelines for copyright, you could upload it to and I could just use it on the article about souling or on some Halloween related articles. Maodhóg (talk) 17:54, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

In the United States, there is no copyright for things published before 1923, so it should be fine to upload the image.

If it was published in the United States, use the copyright tag ((PD-1923)). If it was published outside the United States, then instead use the copyright tag ((PD-US-1923-abroad)) so that people are warned that the copyright might not have expired in the country of first publication.

When you upload the file, also remember to specify where it was published (as you did above). Otherwise, people might claim that there is no evidence that it was published in 1882. --Stefan2 (talk) 13:47, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Hope you like this brownie! Hanvyng (talk) 15:24, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

And again...

Hello, Stefan2. You have new messages at Yintan's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the ((Talkback)) or ((Tb)) template.

Hi Stefan,

I have commented on your nomination to delete here. Thanks, tausif(talk) 11:24, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Can I get you to help explain policy here? Thanks. Werieth (talk) 23:32, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Hi Stefan2, I received a message saying that the photo is possibly not free. The photo was sent to me by its owner. I am willing to cooperate but I don't understand the nature of the problem, and I wonder if you could please let me know how to solve the problem. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Laiguangda (talk • contribs) 02:11, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Back in June, you added a template which tells that the photographer has sent a permission statement to OTRS, but it still says that no one has processed any such e-mail. As the tag was uploaded a long time ago, it would suggest that no permission statement ever was sent. If so, please ask the photographer to follow the instructions at WP:CONSENT. --Stefan2 (talk) 13:04, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Hi Stefan2, The File:NewGenerationBFighters.png picture should not have been deleted. I went to the video myself and screenshot the picture myself.--Youngsevon (talk) 18:06, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

I see that the file has been deleted, so I don't know what it looked like. However, it says that the file was deleted as replaceable fair use, so I assume that it was a photo of someone who still exists or of a building which hasn't been demolished and that you didn't select a free licence for it. In that case, see WP:IUP#Copyright and licensing. --Stefan2 (talk) 18:49, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Hi!

This image was indeed created by me, and I would like it restored under fair use, as it shows a typical screenshot of the interface for the cloud service being described.

What do you suggest? Stephen B Streater (talk) 22:38, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Hi Mr Steater. I am Diannaa and I am the administrator that deleted the image. The image is a full screen shot from a computer running Microsoft Windows. In addition to the content produced by the software, there's a row of non-free icons down the left side for other applications such as Mozilla products, plus a row of copyright Microsoft icons across the top of the page. The part of the screen shot that demonstrates the software includes two large potentially copyright images of flowers plus over twenty other thumbnail-size other potentially copyright images. So my opinion is that the image is not suitable for fair use, because of all the copyright incidental elements. If you could produce an image that demonstrates the software without all these derivative works incorporated therein, it would be okay to upload such an image for fair use in the article. -- Diannaa (talk) 23:04, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

The thumbnails in the interface itself are all my own copyright. The incidental external icons are relevant because the software is a cloud app running in a web browser, on multiple types of OS. This is significant because the term 'cloud' was not in common usage in 2006, the date which the image relates. Merely showing the interface without its context loses this information. In particular, that the software was capable of running on Microsoft OS in a Mozilla browser. Stephen B Streater (talk) 23:16, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Hi Stephen. I've not read the article recently, but if there are independent sources cited which discuss its running in the cloud on the desktop etc. then IMO the case for including the image which depicts such contextual use would be strengthened. Also, it'd probably be desirable for the resolution of the image to be reduced in order to satisfy the criteria of minimal extent of use. -- Trevj (talk) 08:46, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

I just double checked, and the image does not show the software running in a Mozilla browser; it's running on Internet Explorer. And the fact that the software was capable of running on Microsoft OS in a Mozilla browser could easily be described using words, particularly if you have independent third party sources that say so. You don't need an image to prove it, and thus the image fails to tell us anything that can't be described using words alone. Please see WP:NFCC, especially criteria #1 and #8. -- Diannaa (talk) 13:40, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

I would like to contest the speedy deletion of this file (However the contest button in your message to me no longer exists): The journalist is dead, the photo used was the one widely distributed in various at the time of death, there is no current way to get a photo of him. Moreover, a "Non-free fair use in" rationale was provided. Per policy on F7, the use does respect commercial parties in that the same photograph was previously distributed to various news organizations and to non-profits such as Committee to Protect Journalists (CPJ.org) and the Newseum. A low-res portion was used for minimal usage of file content in question. The content is for encyclopedic illustration of the subject's article only and for reader verification and understanding. Furthermore, the image description page was properly executed. Crtew (talk) 23:08, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

The photo was deleted as an Agence France-Presse photo. Are you trying to suggest that the photo was created by someone else? --Stefan2 (talk) 23:52, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

The original source for the photo was the Pahjwok news agency in Afghanistan, and I had provided that in the link. Khpalwak worked for Pahjwok and not for the AFP. I'm not speculating about this source as it is clearly listed in the Newseum's web page: [[4]] Crtew (talk) 00:00, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Hm. I found some other page where it was credited to AFP. In either case, Pajhwok Afghan News appears to be a news agency, so images from that source seem to have the same problem. --Stefan2 (talk) 00:03, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

And that problem is ... please finish your thought, thank you. Crtew (talk) 00:09, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

I want to know a little bit about how you work, please? I have reviewed your contribution history and you seem to make complicated decisions about speedy deletes in a matter of seconds. Four decisions like this in one minute. That's about 15 seconds a decision. You're either amazing, a bot, or you're making questionable decisions.! Please expound on your working methods for me, please. Crtew (talk) 05:51, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

You didn't tell where I have made four speedy deletion decisions in one minute, so I can't answer what I was doing at that time. If there is a large set of similar images with the same problem, then the nominations can be quite fast. Twinkle helps inserting text on pages, saving some time for me.

When looking for problems, I often go to Special:ListFiles and open the latest 50 uploads in different tabs, going through all of them and looking for problems. Some problems are very easy to spot and go fast. For example, if a user uploads an image, writing that it comes from someone else, then it is a trivial case: the image needs to be tagged with ((subst:npd)). Other problems are more complex and may require reading parts of the Wikipedia article. For example, if a user uploads an unfree photo of an individual, then it is necessary to check the article to determine whether the person is alive or not. --Stefan2 (talk) 14:13, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

You never clearly identified the problem, see above. Moreover, when you said photo belonged to a commercial entity, I showed you that your identification of the owner was wrong. Now, my illustrated subject is dead, I have clearly shown that same photo was used by non-profits like Newseum, even UNESCO, and furthermore photo was widespread. I have followed the procedures and steps correctly, and this is for purposes of illustrating one single article. Under Acceptable uses of images number 10 clearly states:

"10. Pictures of deceased persons, in articles about that person, provided that ever obtaining a free close substitute is not reasonably likely." Crtew (talk) 14:24, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

I am quite confident that this decision will be reversed in DRV. Should we go there? Crtew (talk) 14:24, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

You missed WP:NFC#UUI §7: "A photo from a press or photo agency (e.g., AP, Corbis or Getty Images), unless the photo itself is the subject of sourced commentary in the article." WP:NFC#UUI §7 overrules WP:NFCI §10. Pajhwok Afghan News is clearly a press agency. Also, the problem was clearly identified in the reason parameter to ((db-f7)). --Stefan2 (talk) 14:30, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Hi Stefan2, I have uploaded an image (File:Fetch.jpg) as album art for an article about that album's release. As of now, the article (Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Fetch (album)) is under review. Could you let me know what the best policy is, as I am waiting for approval on the article? Do I delete the image, to upload it again once the article is approved? Do I wait for you to delete it, and then ask for a WP:REFUND after the article is approved? Can the image stay until the article is approved?

Thanks for any help on this issue. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Melvins138 (talk • contribs) 17:22, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

The image can't be used in Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Fetch (album) as the page isn't in the main namespace (see WP:NFCC#9). If the article is approved, then you can either reupload the image or request a WP:REFUND. --Stefan2 (talk) 17:48, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Any chance of clearing this backlog?

Catscan query below (had to use nowiki otherwise URL gets mangled) http://tools.wmflabs.org/catscan2/catscan2.php?categories=All+free+media&ns[6]=1&templates_yes=Copy+to+Wikimedia+Commons&templates_any=Already+moved+to+Commons&templates_no=m-cropped%0D%0Ac-uploaded%0D%0AUploaded+from+Commons&ext_image_data=1&file_usage_data=1

Sfan00 IMG (talk) 19:03, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Hi Stefan2

As an administrator, can you please help me delete the following files: Jon_Cowherd_(Pianist).jpg, Fabian Almazan Blue Note ArtistShare.jpg, Jon Cowherd-Mercy Album.jpg, and Fabian Almazan (Pianist) ? I'd like to re upload them with updated, accurate copyrights that abide by Wiki's guidelines in order to make my photos and article drafts accurate. Thank you. Jdreamerr (talk) 21:09, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

I am not an administrator, so I can't delete files. Some of the files you mentioned do not exist. I note that all of your uploads are up for deletion in a week, so a simple solution is to simply wait until that week is over. --Stefan2 (talk) 21:18, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Stefan2 Alright, thank you very much. Jdreamerr (talk) 21:22, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Files_for_deletion/2013_November_5#File:Ashchorjyo_Prodeep_logo.jpg will you please comment here?

	The Photographer's Barnstar
	For your comment which displayed your elephantine propotioned knowledge about copyrights. Here Sohambanerjee1998 15:47, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Please read this section where the user in question has given more details about the source of the images you have nominated for deletion [5]. FYI, nice way to welcome clearly well meaning new editors. Great job! Lesion (talk) 14:00, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Looking at that section, it seems that the pictures uploaded by the user are a mixture of own photos and other people's photos. In either case, as some of them have been published outside Wikipedia before they were uploaded here, the copyright status needs to be verified through OTRS. --Stefan2 (talk) 14:08, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

I disagree with "other peoples' photos" conclusion. It is implied that the image uploader is one of the authors of said papers. You should therefore remove the deletion templates. Lesion (talk) 14:28, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

The rules are clear: the photos were published elsewhere before they were uploaded here, so the uploader needs to provide an OTRS ticket. See WP:IOWN. --Stefan2 (talk) 14:33, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Hello you flagged this file for deletion and it has been deleted by a wikibot before I had a chance to provide the required public license info. I accept culpability, I acknowledge that I have not arranged for the required email to be sent. But I also have to say that I have been somewhat confused by the change to the wikipedia policy regarding photos for articles starting a few years ago. It was not immediately apparent to me that an email was required. Because until the policy changed, it seems no such email was required. I recently noticed the file was tagged for deletion because the required email had not been sent, but I did not have a chance to do anything about it and it has now been deleted by a bot. I would like to get this file restored. I can either re-upload the file or you arrange for it to be done yourself. Yogidude (talk) 11:53, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

The file was deleted by User:Explicit. He is not a bot. The file was deleted last year because the file was marked as fair use but was found to be replaceable. This usually means that it was an unfree photo of a person who was still alive.

Maybe you are instead talking about File:Mahamandaleshwar Swami Shankarananda in Ganeshpuri.jpg, which you uploaded in November last year? You had marked the file with ((OTRS pending)), which means that you had asked the copyright holder to send a permission statement to OTRS. One year later, it said that we were still waiting for that permission statement, so the file was deleted in November by User:Diannaa (who is not a bot either) under the assumption that no permission statement ever had arrived.

If you have permission from the copyright holder for either of the files, then please follow the instructions at WP:CONSENT. In that case, the file will probably be undeleted soon. --Stefan2 (talk) 21:30, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

the required email authorisation has been sent, and I have left a request with Diannaa to undelete the file, is there anything else I need to do Yogidude (talk) 23:49, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

You nominated the Coat of Arms of Malaysia for deletion as replaceable fair use with no explanation in this edit. I don't exactly see how it's replaceable, but I thought I'd find out why you tagged it before I dispute it. Ryan Vesey 18:16, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Coats of arms can be replaced by a free rendition of the same blazon. See for example Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2013 July 31. --Stefan2 (talk) 19:10, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Hi Stefan, I am relatively new to Wikipedia. I have briefly read your concerns and will do anything necessary to correct the issues, I am however unfamiliar with many of the intricacies of wikipedia's proof of copyright and not quite sure how to navigate forward. For the 4 various files you flagged, I do have full copyright permissions for them from the owner, but not quite sure the best way to document or prove this. Furthermore, he has released said photos for full usage online for anybody to use anyway they like. Please help me in this process as I want to to everything in good faith and accurately.

I would like to go ahead and remove the affected images myself, but I'm not quite sure how to do so. I am fine with Wikipedia deleting said images automatically. Let me know what to do from here and I will happily help.

Thank you,

Chriskaspar (talk) 20:56, 11 November 2013 (UTC)chriskaspar

If you have permission for the images, then please see WP:CONSENT which tells how to document the permission. --Stefan2 (talk) 21:25, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

I'll look this direction. Thank you for the help. Chriskaspar (talk) 21:32, 11 November 2013 (UTC)chriskaspar

I speedy deleted the photo here as it is on Commons as File:LINCOLN MONUMENT, ALBANY COUNTY.jpg - thanks and sorry for the confusion, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 02:48, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

I am not a subscriber of Time, I have collected the image Begum Khaleda Zia on Time Magazine Cover.jpg from a free source. And it is still available in many websites besides Wikipedia.

http://nuraldeen.com/2013/11/06/rise-of-terrorism-past-future/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Endeavorbd (talk • contribs) 05:59, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Please tell me how to add the information you want so that this image does not get deleted. Thanks.--RichardMcCoy (talk) 13:06, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Since I shot this photo myself and thus own copyright, did you really have to delete it before we could resolve this matter? Since the link to the image was in red, this is what I assumed that you did. When I uploaded the photo, WP's software did not give me the option of stating this was my own work and was thus releasing copyright to it. However, the fact I said this was my work was stated plainly enough for any troll to notice. Or so I thought. Please advise. Jonyungk (talk) 15:09, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

• The file was not deleted by me but by User:Future Perfect at Sunrise. I tagged the file as "replaceable fair use", which normally means that the file is deleted after two days, but it seems that the deleting administrator felt that the file could be deleted immediately.

According to Google's cache, the image was a photo of a specific car model. Photos of cars are considered to be "replaceable fair use" (see WP:NFCC#1) because someone could take a photo of a car of the same model, removing the need for a fair use image. For that reason, fair use images of cars aren't permitted on Wikipedia. If the photo was taken by yourself, then maybe the deleting administrator could restore the file so that you can change the copyright tag into a free one. If the photo was previously posted somewhere else, or if it said that someone else took the photo, then I think that you should contact OTRS (see instructions at WP:CONSENT). Once OTRS has read your statement, the file should be deleted, provided that the information in the statement is sufficient. --Stefan2 (talk) 15:39, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Please explain to me why the above linked image's copyright status is "unclear or disputed". The image is from the 1940s, which means the copyright has long since expired. The image from a matchbook front, so probably not copyrighted and the "Matchbook cover is 28 years past it's first publication year and no indication that the copyright was renewed." - Neutralhomer • Talk • 01:05, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

There is insufficient source information. There is no evidence that it was first published in the United States, that it is a matchbook cover or that it is from the 1940s. --Stefan2 (talk) 13:35, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

I provided a secondary and uncropped source at the WP:PUF that shows the stamp "Universal Match Corp. Baltimore". From what I have been able to find, the company was in Baltimore, Maryland. Unless Maryland was removed from the US in the '40s, it was part of the US. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 19:27, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

That source looks better, thanks. This looks like something which wouldn't be renewed, so I assume that it is fine. --Stefan2 (talk) 00:52, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, it's one of those things that is tough to source and even tougher to find a copyright for. But you are right, I doubt it was renewed, if it was copyrighted at all.

It is the uniqueness of the matchbook image that makes the WKEY (AM) page even better that it is and what I think helped make the article a GA...but that's just my opinion. :) - Neutralhomer • Talk • 01:12, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for your message on my Talk page. Here is the link to the copyright license on the website where the file was taken from: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/2.0/deed.en As you can see, the file can be freely redistributed. Also, please note that I just became aware that this file already exists on Wikipedia Commons (see File:GiuseppeMeazzaNeazzurro.jpg) under exactly the same copyright arrangement. So I would tend to believe that there should be no copyright licensing problems here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Angelo Somaschini (talk • contribs) 15:46, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Non-commercial licences are not permitted on Wikipedia. See mailarchive:wikien-l/2005-May/023760.html. --Stefan2 (talk) 15:55, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

As I said, this same picture from the same website is already on Wiki Commons. Are you saying that non-commercial licenses are permissible on Wiki Commons but not on Wikipedia? Angelo Somaschini (talk) 16:14, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

On Commons, it says that User:Lokal Profil confirmed that the file was available under a licence which permitted commercial use back in 2007. This settles things: you can't repeal a Creative Commons licence. --Stefan2 (talk) 00:49, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

Thank you! I don't work with image deletions very often, so I manage to screw them up about half the time. For some reason I was thinking that it wasn't a speedy candidate - I'll try to remember that the next time it comes up. --Bongwarrior (talk) 23:05, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

You're welcome! --Stefan2 (talk) 00:48, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

You are correct. I have permission from Tom to use the Photo, and have requested permission from the photographer. But so far the photographer has not filled out a form for wiki. That is why I stopped writing the article and it sits in my sandbox until formal permission comes. So far no reply at all. Tom assured me that it isn't a problem, but I still won't proceed any further without formal permissions. Redddbaron (talk) 23:17, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Unfortunately, the files can't be kept unless permission is available. --Stefan2 (talk) 00:47, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

Well it is just one file, Tom Wagner's photo. The other files I uploaded for other pages should be fine as far as I know. So I will fire off some more emails and even try to contact the photographer by phone if possible. If that doesn't work, I'll find a new photo.Redddbaron (talk) 01:23, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

All photos were taken and submitted to me by the artist for the purpose of creating his wiki page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wilfordd (talk • contribs) 00:34, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

When you uploaded the files, you added a template which told that the photographer had sent a permission statement to OTRS, but no one has registered any receipt of any such statement yet. If no statement was sent, make sure that it is sent now instead. See WP:CONSENT for instructions. --Stefan2 (talk) 00:46, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

Hello Stefan,

Thank you for notifying me about image copyright, I have got another one from commons. --العراقي (talk) 06:12, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

Stefan, you left a message about this drawing on my talk page.

I emailed a copy of a letter from the copyright owner to Wikipedia authorizing its use on Wikipedia. This letter also authorized other drawings and photographs. There does not seem to have been a problem with these.

What is the issue with this particular drawing? Should I resend the letter? Is there something wrong with the wording in the letter?

I would be grateful if you would let me know how to resolve this issue.

Thank you.ChrisFountain (talk) 15:01, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

According to Commons:COM:OTRS/backlog, all e-mails older than seven days have been processed. This file was uploaded a lot earlier than seven days ago, so it would seem that the copyright holder either didn't send any permission at all or that the permission didn't apply to this file. Try asking at WP:OTRS/N to find out what the error is. --Stefan2 (talk) 18:11, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. It was included in the original email. I will resend it.ChrisFountain (talk) 19:34, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

I have resent the letter granting permission to the permissions email address. The subject box of the email is: RE: [Ticket#2013080510000166] Permissions letter for drawings and photographs uploaded to Wikipedia. I hope this is satisfactory.ChrisFountain (talk) 15:07, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Hello, Stefan2. You have new messages at Tyros1972's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the ((Talkback)) or ((Tb)) template.

Hellow Stefan,

I do not know if you are sending me messages or it is a bot, cause I had understood what you mean from your first message on Replaceable fair use File:Iraq Babbler.png. Thank you --العراقي (talk) 19:32, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

The other files are also replaceable, so those were tagged as well. Non-free images of non-extinct species are not accepted, see WP:NFCC#1. --Stefan2 (talk) 20:25, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

Hello Stefan, You sent me a message, didn't You? I don't know what it's all about, the story with pictures on Wikipedia. I tried to upload a cover of a CD or LP a few times. Always failed. Those weren't my own shots I admit. But the photos show always a commonly known picture, shown on a cover. Moreover there are many many articles on Wikipedia which contain such covers, i.e. Wrap Her Up If I did something wrong, please remove the picture. With the pity for the mentioned article. Maciej Dennis lance (talk) 08:17, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

You wrote that the copyright holder to File:Cover ML&MH2.jpeg had released the image to the public domain but didn't provide any evidence that this claim was correct. Please don't do that. If the file is in the public domain, then you should provide evidence of this. If the image isn't in the public domain, then you should write a valid fair use rationale and add an appropriate non-free copyright tag. --Stefan2 (talk) 11:52, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

OK, I won't do that again. I quit adding pictures to articles. Cheers from Warsaw, Maciek 94.124.18.19 (talk) 12:08, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Hi Stefan2 (my grandfather's name was Stefan) :D I saw that You did something about a photo I uploaded for Mona Lisas and Mad Hatters Part Two, instead of removing it. Thanks a lot! Cheers from Warsaw, Maciek Dennis lance (talk) 09:51, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Hi Stefan!

You are a real tough image curator. :)) Good job. Cheers from Moscow!

Lamro (talk) 11:21, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Hi Stefan,

just recognized that you are very keen of deleting pictures you consider as having the status non-fair use and subsequently delete them. As you might have noticed are the pictures I've recently uploaded copyrighted but permitted by the owner for publication. Kind regards, Matthias — Preceding unsigned comment added by MattRaupa (talk • contribs) 2013-11-19T17:43:24 (CET) (UTC)

Wikipedia can't accept Wikipedia-only permissions for photos of buildings which still exist. Someone else could take different photos of the same buildings and license the photos under a licence which permits people to use the images for more purposes. See WP:NFC#UUI §1. If you can get a better permission, then see WP:CONSENT. --Stefan2 (talk) 18:32, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

You've flagged up a bunch of pics of objects I personally own and have photographed. Specifically the ceramics of the Benthall Pottery (Salopian ware) are objects from my personal, private collection, which I personally photographed. The pottery was in operation from the 1890s to the 1930s, and its pieces are now in museum and private collections. They are antiques. I claim the copyright in the images, which I have freely licensed to wikipedia. There are absolutely no other interested parties. Please remove the tag. Rhodian (talk) 16:44, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

You failed to specify how old the objects were. The photos of objects from the 1890s can be kept. --Stefan2 (talk) 18:32, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

I don't know what the Swedish for 'bollocks' is, but maybe it's bollocks. Why didn't you just read the captions to the pictures? Both captions clearly give dates, and if you'd looked at the 1897 vase you would have seen that date is actually painted onto the pot itself! Please be sensible with regard to flagging up images for copyright violation -- it's clear from comments on your Talk page that you are pissing off a lot of people who will now be less inclined to contribute to Wikipedia. Rhodian (talk) 14:19, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

There was no information about the age on the file information pages. Furthermore, the ceramics images were not used in any articles, so it was not possible to look at any image captions anywhere. --Stefan2 (talk) 14:43, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Huh? The images are used with this article Salopian Art Pottery and are fully captioned. Rhodian (talk) 14:57, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

The article Salopian Art Pottery contains photos of different products. The images listed at WP:PUF are not used in that article. --Stefan2 (talk) 15:07, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Please forgive me Rhodian. I am not sure how to reach Stefan2. I am not trying to get in on your conversation. But I am trying to reach him because I have the same issue.

Stefan2 I hope that you get this message. I am unclear exactly how to write you back. Please let me know if you receive this message.

I am the owner of the copyright on the photo of Young Kathy. I find wikipedia very compicated to use and I tried and tried to show that I own copyright of this photo.

Can you help me to show that I own the copyright?

Thank you in advance. Breezesdelsur. And again, Rhodian, I apologize for piggybacking on your conversation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Breezesdelsur (talk • contribs) 20:05, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

So you were alive in 1949 when the photo was taken? --Stefan2 (talk) 23:32, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

A copy of written permission from the owner of the image has been forwarded to permissions-en@wikimedia.org Rupalisharma (talk) 08:22, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Hello, Stefan2. You have new messages at [[User talk:Rupalisharma (talk) 08:22, 20 November 2013 (UTC)|User talk:Rupalisharma (talk) 08:22, 20 November 2013 (UTC)]].
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the ((Talkback)) or ((Tb)) template.

Hello Stefan,

thanks for the explanation about the permissions and licenses.

I am about to send the e-mail from a certified email address, stating my ownership of the material and my intention to publish it under a free license.

I have a question: are there different databases for each language of Wikipedia, or do all media files end up in Commons? I have uploaded this same picture on English and Italian wikipedia. Should I add 'OTRS pending' to all of them, until I send you the email and we solve this?

Thank you very much for your help and availability. Have a good day!

Giuliettadp (talk) 09:16, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

There is no need to upload the image to three different projects; only uploading it to Commons is enough. However, I suggest that you add 'OTRS pending' to all of them until it is settled. There does not seem to be any 'OTRS pending' template on Italian Wikipedia, so I don't know what to add there. --Stefan2 (talk) 16:26, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

FYI, I am in correspondence with the copyright holder re permissions. There is one (hopefully) tiny issue to resolve, which I hope will be resolved in a few minutes.--S Philbrick(Talk) 16:40, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

User:Sphilbrick: Note that the file was uploaded at three different places: Commons:File:Brussels Phil 2013 - Bart Dewaele.jpg, File:Brussels Phil 2013 - c Bart Dewaele.jpg and it:File:Brussels Phil 2013-c Bart Dewaele.jpg. Make sure that all three copies are consistent with regard to licence (currently they all have different licensing information). --Stefan2 (talk) 16:45, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, it is now late in the day in Europe, so I no longer expect a resolution today, but I will continue to follow this.--S Philbrick(Talk) 18:11, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Hello Stefan and Sphilbrick, thank you very much for your help and your explanations. I linked the photo from Commons to the English page and it works perfectly, with all the licenses and permissions. Lovely! Have a beautiful day! Giuliettadp (talk) 12:56, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Hi. you recently took action on two of my uploads and I thought it was worthwhile me responding to both the points you raised. You pointed out that I had not provided a direct link to the NPG webpage for the Noton Barclay file saying that this makes it difficult for you to confirm copyright. When I upload to wikipedia using the wizard I always provide a direct link when it is requested. Might I suggest that you speak to wikipedia if you wish to see changes made to the wizard. Furthermore, if you are only concerned with seeking confirmation of copyright it is worth you looking at the metadata section as this may contain the confirmation you are looking for as is the case with all NPG uploads including that of Barclay. You have also chosen to instigate a deletion procedure for one of my NPG uploads which you will note I have already challenged. Clearly your comments are based on a lack of knowledge and an incorrect supposition. I would suggest that in future you consider raising the subject first with the uploader, who may know a bit more about the subject matter than you.Graemp (talk) 13:15, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

About your tagging of articles that are in AfC. F5: "Reasonable exceptions may be made for images uploaded for an upcoming article." You need to look at the context more closely before tagging or show why this article will not make it through AfC. Otherwise, you need to come up with a rationale for why article will not be accepted or moved to main space because we have to go back and undelete, which costs the editor and administrators more time that takes away from other parts of the project. I'm just saying, I appreciate your vigilance but what's in the sandbox is different from what's in AfC. Crtew (talk) 14:15, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

That quote is not present anywhere in WP:NFCC which instead tells that "A file in use in an article and uploaded after 13 July 2006 that does not comply with this policy 48 hours after notification to the uploading editor will be deleted." The files do not comply with the WP:NFCC policy as they violate WP:NFCC#7 and WP:NFCC#9. WP:NFCC#9 violations used to be removed from pages automatically by a bot and then more recently by User:Werieth using WP:AWB, but it seems that no one has been systematically removing such images from pages for some time. --Stefan2 (talk) 14:31, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Sorry about that, been tied up doing other stuff. I guess I let the backlog grow for too long. Werieth (talk) 15:23, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Dear Stephen2,

Thank you for bringing to my attention your observations regarding several coats of arms that I uploaded. At the moment, most of the free time that I can dedicate in contributing to Wikipedia is spent on research, to back certain contributions with precise references.

I will surely appreciate it, if you might help me resolve those issues you mentioned in your observation. Thank you.--Sulbud (talk) 21:06, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

When you upload a non-free file, you need to make sure that the file satisfies all ten of the non-free content criteria, in particular criteria 1 and 7. --Stefan2 (talk) 21:47, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. I should find extra time to reviews those uploads and correct them.--Sulbud (talk) 22:53, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Stefan,

Thanks for your note today. Actually, the permission for the image is in place. I got this message today too: Dear [e-mail address removed], Your permission has been accepted. I have made the necessary modifications to the file page.

Thank you for your contribution to the Wikimedia projects. Yours sincerely, Corey Clark

Seems like you should discuss it with Corey Clark if you've a problem. I know my friend Gordon Keown (owner and creator of the image in 1971) has no problem with Wikipedia using it, as he said in the note he sent me and I forwarded to Wikipedia.

--Steve Thompson — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ttrider87 (talk • contribs) 00:57, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

It seems that you uploaded three copies of the image (File:Steven L. Thompson aboard his 350cc Shepherd-Kawasaki GP racing motorcycle, Oct. 1971.jpg, File:Oct. 1971 photo of Steven L. Thompson aboard his 350cc Shepherd-Kawasaki in a garage near Thetford, Norfolk, England.jpg and File:Oct., 1971 photo of Steven L. Thompson aboard his 1969 Shepherd-Kawasaki GP racing motorcycle.jpg) but that the OTRS maintainer only added a permission tag to one of them. I agree that this means that they aren't unfree, but on the other hand, I don't see any use for the extra images, so I think that the images should be deleted as redundant. See Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2013 November 22#File:Oct. 1971 photo of Steven L. Thompson aboard his 350cc Shepherd-Kawasaki in a garage near Thetford, Norfolk, England.jpg and Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2013 November 22#File:Oct., 1971 photo of Steven L. Thompson aboard his 1969 Shepherd-Kawasaki GP racing motorcycle.jpg. --Stefan2 (talk) 15:52, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Stefan--sure, delete the dupes. ~~Ttrider87~~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ttrider87 (talk • contribs) 19:18, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Stefan, hi—I noticed on my watchlist a few noms for deletion of images he's uploaded. Do be cautious about checking they're exactly the same, and even then, you might consider chatting with him about them. He's a very experienced and trusted user. Cheers. Tony (talk) 02:36, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

See section #Zeal and How to Win Friends and Influence People below. --Stefan2 (talk) 15:38, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Stefan you were involved in the RfC were the community came out against your position.[6] Continuing to nominate diagnostic images for deletion for which there is consensus that there is not an issue is disruptive and may get you blocked. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 06:14, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

You are misreading the RfC. That section in the RfC suggests that "We should take a conservative position and do what the rest of the publishing industry does". I referred to several copyright registrations from the United States Copyright Office where the Copyright Office had approved copyright registrations of some images, meaning that the position of the Copyright Office is that those images are copyrighted. If some people register copyright of such images in the United States, then it would seem that at least a portion of the United States publishing industry considers such images as copyrightable. If those registrations turn out to be for different kinds of images, then fine. Also note for example VAu001095217 which is claimed to contain 119 copyrighted images, including for example "James Wilson - MRI of the Cervical Spine, 10/20/07" and "Carrie Jefferson - Left Lateral Knee X-Ray: 5/30/06". I realise that some of the images might be highly artistic drawings such as these, but the image titles suggest that at least some of the images are more like these, which are more comparable to the image discussed at WP:PUF. --Stefan2 (talk) 15:37, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for your zealous work on Wikipedia. I bet you never considered that nothing riles people more than seeing wholesale deletion of their work, including images they may place within articles, for whatever reason. And when this is done on any scale, the large number of template messages that are potentially left on different contributors' talk pages could also annoy. Before I had a look at your contributions, I assumed that you may have been a novice or dilettante, but I was wrong because you seem to have been around as long as I have.

It's extremely irksome that you often seem careless or clueless when you go about the deletions. For example, when you speedy an image just because it looks like the same file you saw when you googled the picture when mere examination of the source will tell you that it's free (and that it's clearly stated in the image page); or that the version on the web is of a lower resolution that the one whose deletion you propose – Have you considered asking yourself what could that mean?? Clearly speedying such an image shouldn't be used as a first course of action. And what gives you the right to make presumptions of whether an image has a forseeable use without even bothering to discuss it with the creator(s) beforehand???

This is just the sort of brainless and anal-retentive bureaucracy that put me off contributing to Commons. I'll just conclude by saying that what earns the Grand Prix for idiocy is when you attempt to delete GFDL-compliant images saying that they are non-free (hello, does anybody live here?). If you choose to continue doing things in this disruptively brainless way, I will invite you to join those retards at commons. Regards, -- Ohc ^¡digame! 09:10, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Maybe it is time to bring this user to WP:ANI? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 09:22, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Although my words were harsh, I just want that zeal tempered and for Stefan to tread with more caution. -- Ohc ^¡digame! 09:38, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Here is hoping. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 10:00, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

I also have had problems with this editor who does not write articles or add anything to Wiki in a creative or constructive way but who comes here with a deletionist attitude without looking at the bigger picture or even all the facts. Perhaps it is time to bring him to WP:ANI? Jack1956 (talk) 19:25, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

• User:Ohconfucius: I realise that File:Xerxes20plus.jpg should have been at WP:PUF instead, with the problem explained more clearly. The wording "free license" isn't very specific. Take a look at the comment section where one user asked "Le mention "Free licence" veut-elle dire que les images sont libres de tous droits, dans le sens CC-BY-SA 3.0 License ou GFDL" (= Does "free licence" mean that the image is free of all rights, in the sense of CC-BY-SA 3.0 or GFDL?). This question was answered with "cela veut dire que les images sont libres de droits, que vous pouvez les réutiliser, mais que nous aimerions que vous citiez la source" (= this means that the images are free of rights, that you can reuse them, but that we would like you to cite the source). The user didn't confirm that the image is licensed under the indicated GFDL licence, and the clarification only mentions that it is possible to "reuse" the image, which isn't exact enough. If you have permission to "use" an image, this often means that you only have permission to publish unmodified copies of the image, but that it is prohibited to modify it (note that ((cc-by-nd)) redirects to a speedy deletion template). It is also not clear whether this licence can be repealed if the copyright holder changes his mind at some point in the future. Wikipedia can only accept images under licences which permit modification and which do not expire. The text of CC-BY-SA 3.0 explicitly mentions modifications (section 3 (b)) and the text in section 3 clearly states that CC-BY-SA 3.0 is a perpetual licence.
• File:20110614ITNalt.GIF is not GFDL-compliant as it says that you created the image all by yourself, which is not the case. The image in the "in the news" section is for example File:DirkNowitzki.jpg by Keith Allison. Both GFDL and CC-BY-SA require attribution of the author, and you are not even attributing the author but attributing someone else. The page MediaWiki:Wikimedia-copyrightwarning contains some instructions and also links to the terms of use, which contains more instructions: you must include a list of the authors, or link to a page which contains their names. WP:CWW contains further instructions with which you have not complied. An interesting observation is the file File:DirkNowitzki.jpg, which was imported from Flickr, presumably by someone other than the photographer. Flickr users have not agreed to the Wikimedia terms of use for their Flickr contributions, so only the attribution requirements in CC-BY-SA 2.0 apply – not any additional optional ways to attribute an author which might have been provided by "Wikimedia-copyrightwarning" or in the terms of use.
• At File:Nait3 4550.jpg, I linked to a website where the image had been posted before the image was uploaded to Wikipedia (see List of HTTP header fields#Responses about "Last-Modified"). As the other copy was older, it was obvious that Wikipedia's copy wasn't the earliest copy of the image. The file therefore seemed to be an obvious copyright violation. Now it says that the image is a "High-resolution version given to me by Sean Fretwell". As it was given to you, as opposed to taken by you personally, you need to follow the instructions at WP:IOWN and make sure that the copyright holder sends a permission statement to OTRS. Same with the other images which appeared on other websites before they were uploaded here.
• If a file appears to lack foreseeable use, the usual solution is to simply nominate the file for deletion without prior discussion. If you look at the deletion discussion page, you will find that the deletion nominations by Kelly were done in the same way. --Stefan2 (talk) 15:06, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
  • pardon me for saying that I found each point you raised hid behind some technicality that gives you wriggle room to say you did nothing wrong or that I hadn't complied fully with policies or guidelines. The way you are conducting the arguments is now very close to what I experienced often at Commons and what got me disillusioned, and I think you'll actually find yourself quite at home there.

    Of course I saw the response in the Q&A at the Xerxes page, and while that doesn't overtly cite "GDFL", it's obvious that being very layman and cartesian, when a French person says "les images sont libres de droits, que vous pouvez les réutiliser, mais que nous aimerions que vous citiez la source", it means that you can do what the fuck you want with them provided you attribute, which is Share Alike with attribution without the Anglo-Saxon legalese. The vast majority of people will give you blank stares and shrug their shoulders and say "whatever" when you specifically mention "copyright" let alone GFDL.

    Just because you publish an image on a website doesn't mean you can't subsequently upload to WP. I wasn't going to mention it, but I actually did create some of the original images that you had put up for deletion just as I was going to bed last night. I am interested in hifi and I often trade or resell pieces of gear. How my images found their way onto others' pages doesn't really bother me and it's really the other person violating my copyright in those cases. But I'm not going to cry, issue take-down notices, or send out solicitors' letters, if you get my drift. But I do get upset if you say they isn't mine to use as I see fit.

    You dispute that I created the screenshot. It's a pathetic technicality because De minimis rules apply in such cases. In any event, community consensus is that we don't need to attribute at each insertion, just at the point of origin (ie at the 'File').

    It upset me very much that you went through every single image I ever uploaded in a very short period of time. I don't know how you managed to track them all down (because even I don't remember some of them). But it very much looked like WP:STALK because you seem to have fucked with each of them in some way and put half of them up for deletion.

    You seem to be working like a bot, making edits at 4 per minute throughout the whole time you are one line but edit summary doesn't mention such use. Are you in compliance with WP:BOTS? I suspect that your above justifications are thought about ex-post as there is no way such complex decisions could have been made when you are editing at 4 to 6 edits a minute.

    I noticed that you seemed to be in competition with Kelly to have the greatest number of deletion nominations. Your competition and zeal is making you reckless. I am not the only editor to remark that you are being overzealous, and I once again urge you to take a little more time over your edits, or you could soon find yourself on a long forced wikibreak, or forced into exile at Commons. -- Ohc ^¡digame! 15:56, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

    • The policy is abundantly clear: If you post an image to a different website before the image is posted here, then the image needs an OTRS ticket (or evidence at the other website that you are controlling the uploader's account on that website). There is no difference between Wikipedia and Commons here. Choosing to upload to Wikipedia instead of Commons does not give you a carte blanche to ignore copyright problems. What I saw was that a large number of your photos appeared on numerous other websites without any indication that the images had been posted there by you. The usual thing is to tag such files with ((db-f9)); this is what every user who deals with file-related copyright problems does.
    • I never claimed that you didn't create the screenshot. I claimed that you didn't create the all by yourself as you stated on the file information page. Various other people created the images and wrote the text, although it is possible that you may have created a portion of the material shown on the screenshot. Anyway, the licences are clear that you need to provide attribution, but you didn't provide any attribution at all. However, let's keep that discussion on the PUF page.
    • WP:BOTPOL only applies to bots, so that is irrelevant here. Some tasks are faster than other tasks. For example, finding an image elsewhere on the Internet is often a very fast task and permits a higher edit rate. In the same way, the edit rate can go up a lot if there are multiple identical situations right next to each other. --Stefan2 (talk) 01:24, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
      • There have been lengthy discussions on where and when to attribute, and the community view is clear that we don't attribute at every turn at every insertion point. That the image wasn't even attributed on the MP proves my point! And I honestly don't care if it doesn't conform to your interpretation of what the copyright law is in that respect, because those considerations were taken into account in arriving at that consensus, and your interpretation is but your opinion. My screenshot was used to illustrate the necessity or otherwise of wikilinks in a given section. I wasn't discussing basketball nor any player, so I feel DirkNowitzki.jpg (however it was obtained and previously attributed at its original point of insertion) was incidental to the main purpose, and thus de minimus. I believe my screenshot is accepted use for that purpose.

        I didn't question what the usual procedure is if a file appears to lack foreseeable use; I would probably do the same. I questioned how you made the determination of "lacking foreseeable use" for files that I had only created a few weeks earlier. I'm saying you fucked up, and you ducked. There's the 'what', and the 'how'. A person can be such an anal arsehole when applying the rules that makes him/her disruptive. Wholescale deletion upsets people, even though you may be technically right on one or another point. All along, you've been treating me like some sort of serial copyright violator. It's untrue, and I absolutely hate it. You template plenty of notifications, but there's a gap between notification and sufficient or adequate communication when you do this en masse.

        I'm wasn't just accusing you of using a bot, but I was also challenging your edit rate and your inherent ability to make coherent decisions. Not all jobs are amenable to be performed at that pace, especially when often complex decisions are involved, and you made some 170 edits in about two and a half hours – more edits than the average WP editor makes in a week. The rate of the average WP editor is not the point, but to achieve those speeds you do, decisions need to be binary, for one needs to simplify one's workflow enough to disengage grey matter.

        You will be no doubt pleased to know that I won't make any further comments to you here in this forum, as you seem to be wedded to your high-speed and highly mechanical approach and immune to mine and others' concerns or protestations. I shall be grateful if you will keep the fuck away from me in future. Please go about your own business, and I'll mind my own. I hope never the twain will we meet again.-- Ohc ^¡digame! 04:12, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

        • File:Naim pre @ 2013.png is well over two months old, unused and ((should be text)); it doesn't take much effort to realise that the image isn't very useful.
        • Attribution is a mandatory licensing requirement and never optional. Attribution is done by inserting the name of the author on the page using the material, in the history of that page or by including a link from either the page or from the history. Articles link to file information pages, so if attribution is provided on the file information page (without the need to follow any links from the file information page), then the attribution requirement is satisfied as far as the article is concerned.
        • 170 edits in two and a half hours doesn't look that much at all. It means just below two edits per minute, and many copyright-related tasks are very trivial, such as searching for identical copies of an image elsewhere on the Internet. On top of that, add that there often are multiple edits related to the same action: 2 edits if a DB or DI tag is used (file information page & user talk page), 3 if it goes to PUF or FFD (file information page, user talk page, PUF/FFD daily summary page). --Stefan2 (talk) 18:20, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

As the author of the image and designer of the Scattered Visions single artwork I gave permission for the use of this already and an email containing details of the permission for this file has been sent in accordance with WP:OTRS. If you need anymore information please feel free to contact meMrMoog (talk) 12:18, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

The file was tagged with ((OTRS pending)) in June. At Commons:Commons:OTRS/backlog, it says that the current backlog is 11 days, so it would seem that the message either wasn't sent or that it wasn't possible to identify the file to which it refers. Try asking at WP:OTRS/N, or resend the e-mail if that fails, being very clear about which file it refers to. --Stefan2 (talk) 22:27, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

I (Tony Ameneiro) as the creator of the Scattered Visions single artwork File:Tablewaiters Scattered Visions cover.jpeg, gave permission for the use of the artwork already and an email containing details of the permission for this file has been sent in accordance with WP:OTRS. If you need anymore information please feel free to contact me, I have also made a direct reference to the artwork and given it my copyright acknowledgement on the Tablewaiters page where it is currently in useMrMoog (talk) 11:05, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

There is a template which tells that the previous e-mail was insufficient, which means that the permission e-mail didn't contain sufficient information. OTRS probably told you why the permission isn't sufficient. If not, ask them what else you need to do. --Stefan2 (talk) 22:57, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Giving my friendly notification of a protest discussion of an image resizing. The discussion is here. Have a nice day. CRRaysHead90 | ^#OneMoreGame 09:24, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

I have replied there. --Stefan2 (talk) 22:20, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Stephan2

The photo in question is part of my personal collection. This is a link to the original uncropped image. Maria Pitillo verification photo. As you can see, there is water/chemical damage to the edges of the image, which is why I cropped it. This is the best available photo of Pitillo from the period in which people most know her. I have other photographs, but they are all from Press kits and show her in character for those roles. Djfitzgerald111 (talk) 13:29, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

• I have contacted Pitillo's manager of record in regard to this issue. I have contacted her in the past without a receiving a response. Please give me more time to sort this out. Djfitzgerald111 (talk) 16:06, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

• Thanks for your help. Djfitzgerald111 (talk) 19:28, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

• Why don't you just delete all the photos? Djfitzgerald111 (talk) 19:37, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
  • I have replied on the file talk pages. --Stefan2 (talk) 22:14, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Hello Stefan2,

I am here to ask again for your help. I uploaded a picture for conductor Michel Tabachnik and Brussels Philharmonic on Commons here. I'm not sure that I got the license and the owner right, though. Can you check it out, please?

Thank you very much! Giuliettadp (talk) 13:36, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

The file name ends with "(c) 2010 Chris Hofer" which suggests that Chris Hofer is the photographer. If so, get Chris Hofer to send permission to OTRS as you did with the previous file, then tag with ((OTRS pending)). In the ((Information)) template, you wrote that Brussels Philharmonic is the author of the image. You added ((self|cc-by-sa-3.0)). This suggests that you are the copyright holder which contradicts the "(c) 2010 Chris Hofer" in the file name. Unless you took the photo yourself, you should normally use just ((cc-by-sa-3.0)) instead. That said, if there are errors on the page, but an e-mail to OTRS contains all details about photographer and licence, I would assume that the OTRS volunteer who handles the e-mail will correct all errors. --Stefan2 (talk) 22:07, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

I agree with the proposal to delete this file and have stated so at the discussion. This should be done as soon as practical (ASAP). — Quicksilver^{T @} 23:53, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Hello. I read very carefully what you wrote in my discussion page about the file representing the coat of arms of Bergamo, but I didn't understand what's wrong with the description. Before uploading it, I looked at other italian coat of arms files uploaded on en.wiki and followed the instruction on UploadWizard. Why all the CoAs of italian municipalities uploaded here are ok and this one is not? — Kingston28 (talk) 15:49, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Non-free images of coats of arms are not OK as someone else could create a freely licensed image based on the same blazon. See for example Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2013 July 31. --Stefan2 (talk) 15:59, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

The fact is that those coat of arms are not the ones officially adopted by italian municipalities but representations made by the website araldicacivica.it which gave the permission of uploading their creations on Wikipedia (see here). — Kingston28 (talk) 16:07, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

All images from that website were deleted from Commons at some point. In the deletion discussion, I think that the main point was that the website seemed to collect images from various unidentified sources such as books. It was therefore questioned whether the website was the copyright holder in the first place. --Stefan2 (talk) 16:28, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

See Commons:Commons:Deletion requests/Italian CoA:

Stefan2 (talk) 16:37, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

So why isn't that information made clear when you upload? I'll keep it in mind for the future. Tony (talk) 11:38, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

Why isn't what information made clear? --Stefan2 (talk) 11:47, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

That it's better to use svg than jpeg. Tony (talk) 12:51, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

I was under the impression that no copyright issues would exist in such an image as the original Cricket Union of whom the imaged is based upon no longer exists as an entity? Is the issue not with the Cricket Union, but instead with the uploader of the original (internet) image? — Preceding unsigned comment added by J man708 (talk • contribs) 12:05, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

See Commons:COM:HIRTLE: copyright normally expires 95 years after publication or 70 years after the death of the person who made the logo. --Stefan2 (talk) 13:27, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

I have now added criteria from WP:NFCC#1 and WP:NFCC#2 for all three images which you have listed for possible replacement. I hope my descriptions are satisfying to you. Happy editing, Carbon6 ^talk 17:47, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

Hi, Stefan. Thanks for your interest in the Tibetan Buddhism article. I'm a bit unhappy with you reverting my change to that graphic, though.

Changing the graphic was work for me. You don't say anything about it on the Talk page, where I had raised this some time ago and when I made the change I commented there again. So what's the story?

Your summary says, "higher resolution", but you have not added anything. My graphic and the one you reverted to are exactly the same resolution. Please say what you are talking about.

Please post your reply to this on Talk:Tibetan Buddhism.

   Moonsell

Before you reply, please consider: if you don't like something but you don't have the time to check the talk page about it, you don't have the time to trash it either. (talk) 20:49, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

I own my picture it it should not be a question (Tnoova (talk) 22:48, 28 November 2013 (UTC))

It is MY picture and I give permission is given by the owner for free use (Tnoova (talk) 22:49, 28 November 2013 (UTC))

See the file talk page. --Stefan2 (talk) 22:53, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

((admin help))

Please release MY photo

(Tnoova (talk) 00:28, 29 November 2013 (UTC))

Hello Stefan, you made a comment over here[7] that I didn't really understand. The picture is a four-pack of NiMH batteries from energizer, still in the package. You said "delete as derivative work of copyrighted packaging". But from what I understood, COPYVIO should only apply to text that we cut-n-pasted, right? The picture in question should either fall under fair use (just like for instance File:1959_Studebaker_Deluxe_4E.jpg which is a product-pic taken by an amateur photographer and then CCBYSA-licensed), or in the worst case WP:NFCC. Is that wrong, and if so, can you help me grok the image-policies, I'm new at that stuff. There is some text, in the picture. There are some logos, in the picture. There is also the picture-file itself, as a legal entity. There are some batteries in the picture, but I think your argument is about the packaging-stuff, not about the product-which-is-in-the-packaging. If we had photo#2, which was just a battery, no packaging visible at all, with text-on-the-battery-casing and logo-on-the-battery-casing visible in photo#2, would that still be a problem? Danke. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 19:47, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

The image File:1959_Studebaker_Deluxe_4E.jpg does not fall under fair use (a.k.a. WP:NFCC) as the vehicle isn't copyrighted. The image File:Energizer NiMH.JPG fails WP:NFCC in the article Nickel–metal hydride battery as you can illustrate the article with a battery which isn't copyrighted. --Stefan2 (talk) 14:29, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Well, okay, perhaps a better example would have been a photo of a celebrity or politician, rather than a brand of truck -- use of a picture of RandomCeleb is one of those borderline cases, right? And although I agree that we can have an article on NiMH batts, with a picture of a generic batt and/or an unbranded batt, I disagree that correctly reflects/documents/describes the topic.

Point being, that in the ibuprophen article, I would expect to see a picture of a generic, of Advil as a top USA brand, and of Nuprofen as the top Commonwealth brand. In the NiMH article, I would expect to see a picture of a generic like Power2000, of Eneloop-aka-Sanyo as the top brand nowadays, and of Energizer as the top historical brand, plus maybe Duracell as the runner-up-historical-brand... Sony, Yuasa, and Tenergy would prolly get mentions in the prose, but not photos. Anyways, this turned into a bit of a long reply, sorry about the TLDR. But am I making sense? There is a chemical technology called ibuprophen, and then there is a separate brand-marketing world called Advil/Nuprofen, which is also Noteworthy, and essential to understanding the topic of headache-medicines. There is NiMH, plus also EneloopSanyo/Energizer/etc. By just showing the semi-generic Power2000 brand, and the disassembled technology-demo-picture, we are pretending like there is no market, only a technology. HTH. — 74.192.84.101 (talk) 18:06, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Hi Stefan. Thank you for your explanation. i have instructed the owner to send a mail to Wiki Commons indicating his intention to publish it under a free license. Can you perhaps tag the photo in question that it is in a 'pending'-status. I'm not sure how to do that. Thank you for your help. --Lespaul3675 (talk) 02:10, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Now tagged with ((OTRS pending)). --Stefan2 (talk) 14:32, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Can you please let me precisely know what more needs to be done to put FG Natesa Iyer image in Wikipedia commons?

THis is a family photograph taken more then sixty years ago. It is widely used in India by publications related to classical music and dance - SRUTI,(Issue 330, March 2012) and Sangeet Natak Akademi journal( XLII, NUMBER 4, 2008). And FG Natesa Iyer is a public domain figure for South India, and perhaps for India as well. Can you please advise what more needs to be done?

There were some more photographs uploaded of FG Natesa Iyer,which were not used/deleted. For example please see (File:FGN as Hiranyakashyapu.jpg ). I would kindly wish to reinsert these files back to Wikipedia and release this to commons.

Anant (talk) 16:15, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

The template ((PD-India)) only provides information about the copyright status in India. It can only be used for photos published before 1953. It says that the photo probably was taken during the 1950s, although there is no way to verify this. Stating that it was taken in the 1950s is too inexact as there is no way to tell whether it was published, let alone taken, before 1953.

Wikipedia is hosted in the United States, and USA uses a different copyright term. In the United States, all Indian photos taken in 1941 or later are copyrighted. --Stefan2 (talk) 15:30, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

There are a few photos taken before 1920s decade. Can these be uploaded? There should be no ambiguity on the copyright status?. The photos were removed, as can be seen by the notices on my talk page. This particular photo was probably taken before 1953, as that was the yearFG Natesa Iyer left Tiruchirappalli that year.

Anant (talk) 16:02, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Stefan2 Thank you for your help. While the Seminary had given permission for the use of their Seal and had planned to put notice of the Creative Commons License on their web site, based on your feedback and research into other related denominational logos on wikipedia, it seemed best to go with non-free fair use. I consulted with the Seminary and this is what they thought was best given the updated information. I made the appropriate edits on the image page. JohnKeble (talk) 04:48, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Can you have a look over my recent efforts to try and clear down some of the PD-x type templates? Sfan00 IMG (talk) 21:12, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

I see that you have changed ((PD-x)) into ((PD-x|commons)). Did you check for any subsisting copyrights for those files? The ((PD-x)) templates do not necessarily warn about that. It might be conceivable to assume that there is no subsisting copyright in most cases, but I'm not sure if it is a good idea to add the |commons tag without checking this. --Stefan2 (talk) 15:02, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

To be fair I was going by dates.. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 16:18, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Checked the archive.org source listedSfan00 IMG (talk) 16:02, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Please return to the page where u listed File:Moodu pani album cover.jpg for deletion. ---- Kailash29792 (talk) 03:30, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

I'd been looking through media tagged with these...

((PD-AR-Photo))((PD-Australia))((PD-AustraliaGov))((PD-China))((PD-Egypt))((PD-Hungary))((PD-India))((Pd-india))((PD-India-old))((PD-Italy))((PD-Pakistan))((PD-RusEmpire))((PD-Russia))((PD-Russia-2008))((PD-Sweden))((PD-Thailand))((PD-Ireland))((PD-UK))((PD-UK-unknown))

((PD-Canada))((PD-Czech))((PD-NewZealand))((PD-NZ))((PD-ROC))((PD-Myanmar))((PD-Malta))((PD-Malaysia))((PD-Lebanon))((PD-Japan-oldphoto))((PD-Jordan))((PD-Bangladesh))((PD-South-Africa))((PD-Czech))((PD-HK))((PD-HHOFFMANN))((PD-Iraq))((PD-Israel))((PD-Israel-Photo))((PD-Japan))((PD-SAGov))

but I'm going to take a bit of break, as concerns have been raised that I'm misapplying things.Sfan00 IMG (talk) 16:25, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Hey, I want to get image for Chrome Dokuro, but, the last time I remembered, you said that I need to get copyright from the copyright holder, which is from Artland and Akira Amano. How can I get the copyright just like other Reborn! characters images like this one? Mukuro Rokudo, or Tsuna Sawada Thank you. --Arami-re (talk) 15:00, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

I don't remember where the previous discussion was. The other characters have images which are uploaded under fair use claims. Try doing the same. --Stefan2 (talk) 16:54, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm still new to this, so I actually still don't really understand how. Can you explain it to me the way? --Arami-re (talk) 13:37, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia currently applies 70 pma to the UK (see PD-UK) but the relevant copyright law has some savings for pre 1957 works - http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1988/48/schedule/1, could you consider updating the template accordingly for clarity? Sfan00 IMG (talk) 11:02, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Unfortunately, the section has the effect that certain copyrights are extended, not shortened. The European Union established some common copyright terms in the Copyright Duration Directive. However, Article 10.1.1 in that directive tells that the EU directive shall not have the effect that the copyright term is shortened for any work in any country, provided that the work was created before the EU directive was implemented in the domestic law. Therefore, you need to look at both the current copyright law and the former copyright law and see which term is longer and apply that term to each work. The portion of the UK law that you found essentially contains half of the text of Article 10.1.1 in the EU directive (and I assume that the other half appears somewhere else in the British law). Under the old UK law, the copyright to certain works created between 1 June 1957 and 1 August 1989 (I think) expires 50 years after the work was first published, without any regard to when the work was made, essentially giving perpetual copyright to unpublished works. On the other hand, the EU directive provides a term which is normally life+70 years for such works. Therefore, you need to check whether life+70 years is longer or shorter than 50 years from publication. The term for works created before 1 June 1957 is extra complex because terms in an even older British copyright act sometimes are relevant. The terms in all old British copyright laws become obsolete on 1 January 2040 upon which only the EU copyright terms will apply.

This PDF file tries to summarise all different terms which currently apply in the United Kingdom. It is very messy, and I don't know whether everything is correct there. The PDF file disagrees with Commons:Template:PD-UK-unknown with regard to literary, dramatic and musical works, and I can't tell whether it is Commons or the PDF file which is wrong.

The PDF file actually misses a few unusual special cases. A small number of works, such as the King James Bible and Peter and Wendy, are subject to perpetual copyright in the United Kingdom (which expires on 1 January 2040 when the old copyright laws become obsolete). --Stefan2 (talk) 14:18, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

https://tools.wmflabs.org/catscan2/catscan2.php?categories=All+free+media&negcats=All+non-free+media%0D%0APD+Italy%0D%0AWorks+copyrighted+in+the+U.S.%0D%0AWorks+copyrighted+in+the+United+States%0D%0AWikipedia+files+for+deletion&ns[6]=1&templates_no=protected+generic+image+name%0D%0Aprotected+image%0D%0App-protected%0D%0App-template%0D%0Aexample+files%0D%0Aprotected+sister+project+logo%0D%0ACopy+to+Wikimedia+Commons%0D%0ANow+Commons%0D%0ADeleted+on+Commons%0D%0ADo+not+move+to+Commons%0D%0Anominated+for+deletion+on+Commons%0D%0AAlready+moved+to+Commons%0D%0ANotMovedToCommons%0D%0Adb-nowcommons%0D%0AShadowsCommons%0D%0AKeep+local%0D%0Aesoteric+file%0D%0AConvert+to+SVG+and+copy+to+Wikimedia+Commons%0D%0Am-cropped%0D%0Ac-uploaded%0D%0AUploaded+from+Commons%0D%0Aduplicate%0D%0Affd%0D%0Apuf%0D%0Absr%0D%0AImagewatermark%0D%0Afile+at+CCI%0D%0Adi-no+license%0D%0Adi-no+permission%0D%0Adi-no+source%0D%0Awrong-license%0D%0Aout+of+copyright+in%0D%0AOTRS+pending%0D%0AOTRS+received%0D%0AWikipedia+screenshot%0D%0ANFUR+not+needed%0D%0Adb-reason%0D%0Adb-f9%0D%0Adb-redundantimage%0D%0Asplit+media%0D%0Auserspace+file%0D%0Adi-dw+no+license&ext_image_data=1&file_usage_data=1 - This query] lists about 1000 images that may or may not be suitable for Commons. It would be nice to try and reduce it to zero if possible.. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 16:17, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

I'd kindly ask you to double check as images are present on the PDF. I suggest checking Page 11 (the PDF page number, not the actual page numbers on the pages). :) --User ⁵⁰ 16:52, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

I'd kindly ask you to double check page 11. The photographs on page 11 clearly have different light, damages and similar. A source and licence for our photographs is needed. See ((photo of art)). --Stefan2 (talk) 17:16, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

There is a possibility of it being from an older version of the PDF as the images were uploaded several years back you know... --User ⁵⁰ 17:20, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Well, in either case we need a source and licence for the photographs we are using. Currently we only have a source and copyright tag for the underlying coins, not for the photographs. --Stefan2 (talk) 17:25, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Upon further investigation, I think they come from here. --User ⁵⁰ 17:32, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Please help understand this, because I'm unclear. The file I uploaded File:Shi DeRu and Shi DeYang.jpg & provided proof of permission for, via email, is listed as possibly unfree again by Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files/2013 November 15#OTRS pending since July, because the user Mochamad farhan, who decided to troll by replacing it with a Bruce Lee photo, that it was reverted from. So am I now required to re-get permission from the the individual(s)/organisation that granted it in the first place, to show that it is free again? It seems to me that this is simply a case of vandalism that's been reverted back to normal & needs no further input, unless & until such an event should occur again. I don't see the reason for it to be re-listed as unfree. Thanks for your help. InferKNOX (talk) 17:10, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

I'd like a second opnion..

According to http://www.fitzmuseum.cam.ac.uk/dept/coins/library/whitehead/ R.B Whitehead died in 1967, so if it's a photo he took it's NOT out of copyright as far as I can see.

However, if it's an unknown work taken in Pakistan ( he was working in Lahore) then it might be.

Your thoughts? Sfan00 IMG (talk) 21:45, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

What matters is the country of publication, not the country of photography. It therefore depends on which country the book "Coins of the Indo-Greeks" was published in. Regardless of that, the image satisfies ((PD-US-1923-abroad)). --Stefan2 (talk) 22:04, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

I made some changes to ((PD-UK)), I'd appreciate some wording tweaks though..Sfan00 IMG (talk) 22:22, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

We need a non PUF/FFD process for image reviewing I think..

So that things like this one :- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:HMS_Greyhound_%281900%29_underway_at_Portland.jpg

can be looked at.

This is a PD-US-1923 abroad image.

It also likely (given the subject and sourcing) to have potentialy been taken officially (i.e PD BritishGov).

PUF or FFD seems like the wrong process, and ((Wrong-license)) is typically used for non-free content misifentified as free.

It would be appreciated if someone such as yourself could draft a proposal for a 'License Status Review' process which could replace ((wrong-license)) but still allow for images like the above mentioned image (which no-one is saying is non-free for Wikipedia purposes) to be determined by collective expertise. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 12:35, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Hello Stefan2, I have a special request. Could you or someone that you know, do me a favor and nominate the following image for a "speedy deletion"? The image which is in violation of copyright laws since it's brand and label are copyrighted is File:Ron del Barrilito Tres Estrellas.jpeg. I would do it myself, but I usually end up messing the deletion process. Thank you in advance. Tony the Marine (talk) 16:20, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Lurker comment: It looks like User:Sfan00 IMG has nominated the file for deletion on Commons (see Commons:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Ron del Barrilito Tres Estrellas.jpeg). -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 00:24, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Tagged for commons in good faith, but would appreciate a second opinion.Sfan00 IMG (talk) 10:13, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

A contributor I respect, raised concerns on IRC about Category:Pakistani_public_domain_photographs given that it contains images which are pre partition and thus should be some other license than PD-Pakistan, because they were created under the British Raj...

I am therefore asking that someone with image expertise takes a look at these carefully, and gives a second opinion Sfan00 IMG (talk) 21:11, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

If they were created in British India, then I would guess that the source country is either India or Pakistan, but I don't know how to determine which country we should treat them as being from. I think that we have the following five cases:

• Published before 1923: PD in USA per ((PD-US-1923-abroad)). Copyright status in the source country more complex, but only needed for a Commons move and not needed for hosting the file locally.
• Terms in both ((PD-India)) and ((PD-Pakistan)) satisfied on 1 January 1996: PD in USA per ((PD-URAA)), and can be moved to Commons. Unclear which source country template we should use.
• Terms in ((PD-Pakistan)) satisfied on 1 January 1996, but terms in ((PD-India)) not satisfied: No idea what to do. Try asking at Commons:COM:VPC in case someone else has a clue, but expect the only answer to be "no idea". Free in USA if published before 1923.
• Neither ((PD-Pakistan)) nor ((PD-India)) was satisfied on 1 January 1996: Treat as unfree in USA unless published before 1923.
• Government work: Per ((PD-UKGov)), British Government works enter the public domain 50 years after publication (sometimes 50 years after creation for photographs). The British government has also stated that this applies worldwide, so we do not need to bother with URAA. Problem: The source country is possibly India or Pakistan (not the UK). Also, the copyright holder may have shifted to either the Indian government or the Pakistani government upon independence. I don't know whether the terms in ((PD-UKGov)) can be used for such government works. --Stefan2 (talk) 21:56, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

How do I export an Excel graph as an SVG, then? Tony (talk) 09:18, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

I don't know. I don't use MS Excel myself. --Stefan2 (talk) 16:07, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Hi. Just to ask, can you remove your vote supporting the deletion of the "File:Crush Em.ogg" sample? I appointed another editor to address the topic, and it appears that he did the request.--Вик Ретлхед (talk) 15:46, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Added the sample to the song page. Anything else that needs to be done?--Вик Ретлхед (talk) 18:16, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Can you point me what else needs to be done in order to keep the sample? If not, you should put a note saying that only the older version of the article is up for deletion. And what do you mean by "orphaned"? The audio is used in the song article and its use is justified.--Вик Ретлхед (talk) 22:31, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

What part of "The previous version(s) of this file are non-free" in the template is it that you don't understand? --Stefan2 (talk) 22:58, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

In that case, the discussion regarding the sample's deletion should be closed.--Вик Ретлхед (talk) 23:21, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

There aren't any free equivalents available...Modernist (talk) 22:53, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

He's an important Surrealist and we need one of his paintings to show what he did...Modernist (talk) 22:56, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

The purpose is to show what surrealism paintings look like. Some surrealism paintings are in the public domain per ((PD-US-1923-abroad)), so the painting is replaceable by those pre-1923 paintings. --Stefan2 (talk) 23:04, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

In fact his type of Surrealism cannot be duplicated by someone else. Artists are unique - there is no free equivalent to Tanguy's work. Why did you delete the Fair Use Rationale I added for use in the Yves Tanguy article?...Modernist (talk) 23:08, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Because the image wasn't in the Yves Tanguy article (although it seems that the image has been added to the article now). Fair use rationales are only useful for the articles in which the image is used. --Stefan2 (talk) 23:10, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Yeah I added it. I'll re-add the FuR...Modernist (talk) 23:13, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Re: File:Oamaru stonework.jpg, File:NorthOtago.jpg, and File:Oamaru stonework.jpg - the pd template clearly says "This work has been released into the public domain by the copyright holder." I would not have added that template if I were not the copyright holder. All three now state more explicitly that I took the photos, but please be aware that someone can only release a work into the public domain if they are the copyright holder of that work, and as such, it was already clear that I was and had done so. Grutness...wha? 00:56, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

The problem is that ((PD-release)) only states that the copyright holder has released the image to the public domain, but without telling who the copyright holder is. If the copyright holder is unknown, then we need to know who the copyright holder is, and we also need evidence that the copyright holder has released the image to the public domain. I see that you have fixed this problem by adding a clear statement that you are the photographer. --Stefan2 (talk) 00:59, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

When I uploaded the photos in 2005, the template was all that was needed - if you used it, it automatically meant you were the copyright holder. The system has probably changed several times in the last eight years... and I notice that ((pd)) has simply been a redirect to the quite different ((pd-because)) since about 2010. There are probably 40 or 50 of my pics which simply have ((pd)) on them. Sounds like I need to expect a barrage of similar queries. :/ Grutness...wha? 05:34, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

I have taken a look at all revisions of ((PD-release)) from 2005, and they all state that the file was released to the public domain by the copyright holder without telling who the copyright holder is. A problem is that lots of people seem to think that all material on the Internet is in the public domain, and so they upload things from dubious sources using this public domain template. Unfortunately, it isn't possible to tell a valid PD claim from an invalid one unless the source is clearly indicated. Note the difference between ((PD-self)) and ((PD-release)). --Stefan2 (talk) 14:38, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Despite that, it was all that was needed in 2005 and was unquestioned at the time - especially since ((PD-self)) was newly created and wasn't known to many editors in early 2005. As such, you'll find a lot of copyright holders who used it who gave no further reasons. I agree that the work needs doing, but it'll occur a lot with older files (and a lot of those will have been uploaded by people who are no longer editing WP, so there will be a lot of deletions of perfectly acceptable material). There are ways of weeding out the obviously copyrighted works (TinEye, for example), but others perhaps need a little more than a standard boilerplate "they will be deleted unless info is added "within the next days" (whatever that means - presumably a parameter was missed out when the template was made). I'd suspect that if the photos were added by an admin (as I was by 2005), and look like snapshots rather than posed works (as these do) there's a good chance they're kosher, too. I realise that making such judgement calls makes the copyright-checking process a little more complex, but it reduces the risk of (a) deleting acceptable and useful files, and (b) boilerplating editors who have clearly been on Wikipedia for many years as if they were newbies. Grutness...wha? 00:40, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Tineye doesn't work that well with old files. Old files have often been copied to lots of pages on the Internet from Wikipedia, and the original source for a copyright violation may have been deleted. If the uploader hasn't been editing for a long time, it might be a good idea to use more than just 7 days. I realise that many photographs also have EXIF metadata which indicates the date of photography. If a photograph was taken shortly before the upload, it is less likely to be someone else's work. --Stefan2 (talk) 00:50, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Stefan2 - On the ones I'd been reviewing, I'm often more inclined to put a ((wrong license)) tag where it might be a self image not labelled as such.Sfan00 IMG (talk) 13:17, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Note that many files with ((PD-release)) previously had ((PD)), which means that the file is claimed to be in the public domain for some unspecified reason. Often impossible to verify as there's no information about where the file comes from. It's unfortunate that many uploaders do not provide sufficient information to verify the copyright status. --Stefan2 (talk) 14:14, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

Yours is the oldest surviving move request at WP:RM. From reading the discussion, a move to Template:Incomplete move to Commons appears logical. Would this be agreeable to you? Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 17:13, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, I forgot about that. I've added a comment now. --Stefan2 (talk) 20:53, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

I think you favor 'Copied to Commons but not deleted here'. Is that template intended to be a complaint that will draw the attention of someone who will fix it? I see why a person might tag a 'duplicate' enwiki image that presumably is no longer needed since it exists on Commons. But is someone unhappy about that? Is anyone supposed to do anything? Or is it just a routine acknowledgment of a situation that may have some reason but is not worth any further research. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 23:38, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

This tag means that the file can't be deleted because the file doesn't satisfy WP:CSD#F8. It could for example mean that the file has been nominated for deletion on Commons. --Stefan2 (talk) 00:45, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

So this tag puts the image in a temporary status, that ought to be resolved soon? Does this tag say something different from ((Now commons))? EdJohnston (talk) 02:03, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

This is typically meant as a temporary status. For example, we might be awaiting the outcome of a deletion discussion on Commons. I think it's occasionally used in other cases, for example if someone tries to get a "keep local" file deleted as F8 (not possible as a "keep local" disqualifies the file for deletion as F8). --Stefan2 (talk) 15:17, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

It seems that the current move discussion does not reveal any consensus. If you think it is likely that opinions will change, I could relist it. Otherwise it is better for me (or some other admin) to close it now as No Consensus. EdJohnston (talk) 16:48, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Well, it is clear that there is consensus that the file shouldn't have been moved to its current target back in May. I think that the problem is that the people who participated in the discussion don't know very well what the template means. --Stefan2 (talk) 22:57, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Hi Stefan2, would appreciate if you took a look at this contributors uploads, some concerns have been raised about them being copied from texbooks? Sfan00 IMG (talk) 13:21, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Many of them look like scans from books. Some of them also seem to be below the threshold of originality, but it's hard to know where to draw the line. --Stefan2 (talk) 14:10, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

Soham (talk) is wishing you a Merry Christmas! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year!

Spread the Christmas cheer by adding ((subst:Xmas3)) to their talk page with a friendly message.

Soham (talk) 13:29, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Oh, thank you! --Stefan2 (talk) 14:12, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

Good morning, Stefan, the picture is not available online any longer except as a link: http://www.google.de/imgres?start=80&safe=off&sa=N&hl=de&tbm=isch&tbnid=CY5u7tdjIBKREM:&imgrefurl=http://www.freiepresse.de/THEMA/Marat&docid=6VfNJH7EBaBeFM&imgurl=http://www.freiepresse.de/DYNIMG/93/36/4289336_W150C792x528o8x0.jpg&w=150&h=100&ei=hgu2UoK3A6XK0AWT14HQDg&zoom=1&iact=rc&dur=491&page=3&tbnh=80&tbnw=117&ndsp=36&ved=1t:429,r:11,s:100,i:37&tx=74&ty=42&biw=1173&bih=787 The author gave his permission but did not manage to send it to Wikipedia yet; he needs more time, if possible. Thank you, Cote d'Azur 22:16, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

Which picture are you talking about? --Stefan2 (talk) 22:20, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

This picture:

Main page: File:Curtain call at the end of a performance of the opera Charlotte Corday.jpeg

Hi, I did research on this and was unable to find a video that shows the Yama Yama routine which is what the article is about. Except this one which is not PD. What are your thoughts why the rationale is not right? -- GreenC 16:46, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

There is no critical discussion of the Yama Yama routine in the article, so the purpose of the image is obviously not to show that. Instead, the only purpose of the image is to show what a person looks like in those funny clothes, but we already have several free images of that in the article. --Stefan2 (talk) 10:45, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

The video is not there to show "what a person looks like in those funny clothes", it is there to show the Yama Yama Man dance routine, as I described in the Fair Use rationale. Not sure why you are saying the rationale is to "show what a person looks like in funny clothes", the rationale does not say that. Second, the dance routine is discussed in the article and sourced as such, see Daniel Goldmark; Charlie Keil (2011). Funny Pictures: Animation and Comedy in Studio-Era Hollywood. University of California Press. pp. 42–43 for example. This is discussed in the opening paragraphs of Yama_Yama_Man#The_Yama_Yama_Man. -- GreenC 19:17, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, there is no critical discussion about the dance routine, and the film is also replaceable by the text in the section Yama Yama Man#The Yama Yama Man, or by a contemporary recording by someone who is willing to license the recording. --Stefan2 (talk) 13:39, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, there is critical discussion about the dance routine; videos/pictures are not replaceable with text descriptions; and while it's theoretically possible someone modern could try to re-enact the dance routine it's not the same as contemporary from the period which is not reproducible. Clearly we disagree on this issue, how about we agree to disagree and let others voice an opinion. Merry Christmas. -- GreenC 18:21, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

Please specify where the critical discussion is. All I can find is a textual replacement of the film, but no critical discussion. --Stefan2 (talk) 18:36, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

FWiW Bzuk (talk) 19:43, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Can you take a look at File:1952 Building Finn DInghies at Borresens Baadebyggeri, Denmark.jpg. The PD-because template claims that image is in the public domain in Finland because it expired in 2002 (50 years after publication). I don't really understand the whole URAA stuff, but wouldnt that not make it in the PD in the US because it was not in the PD in Finland prior to 1996? See also File:1952 Finn L18 Gold Medal.jpg & File:1952 Harmaja skyline.jpg Should these be converted to non-free? -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 03:16, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

All moved to Commons. Photos published before 1966 entered the public domain 25 years after they were published (which was a lot earlier than 1996), and these were clearly published in that report from the 1950s. The uploader gave the wrong PD rationale, though. --Stefan2 (talk) 20:43, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

You sir, as always, are awesome. Thanks. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 20:53, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Hello,

I'm hoping you can help direct me in regards to a photo that I added:

File:ENVIRON Corporate Headquarters Arlington Virginia.jpg

I know that there was some back and forth on this particular image as I had sent an email from the person who took the photo with their iPad to the OTRS board and it was pending their approval. But it now says that the message I sent them was insufficient. Can you help guide me on what I need to do next? I keep going from page to page that has everything and anything to do with permission use and I'm lost on what to do.

The person who took the photo of the building gives all rights and permissions to use it in any way shape or form however I don't know how to make sure that this permission is accepted.

Any help that you can provide me would be greatly appreciated. Thank you!

Caswivel (talk) 23:17, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

A month ago, User:SarahStierch added a template which tells that the permission is insufficient. Users get one month to fix insufficient permissions, and that month is now over. You would have to contact the copyright holder and get the copyright holder to send in sufficient permission for the image. --Stefan2 (talk) 23:23, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Is their anywhere that I can find what that format needs to be for sufficient permission, a template of sorts of what exactly the email needs to say that you can direct me to? Thank you.

23:36, 27 December 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Caswivel (talk • contribs)

See for example WP:CONSENT or Commons:COM:ET. --Stefan2 (talk) 23:48, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Thank you!! Caswivel (talk) 00:57, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Hi,

I notice that you have nominated quite a few files tagged with OTRS-received for deletion. Have your considered applying for OTRS access yourself? Working with someone with OTRS access/having the permission yourself could be very useful to resolve the problem presented by insufficient OTRS information, rather than go through the entire tagging-and-untagging, which can be hectic.

Regards, TheOriginalSoni (talk) 08:30, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Hello. Can you please explain the speedy deletion request notice that you posted on my talk page ? That file was uploaded by me to the Commons and I can't see what's wrong with it --[Tycho] (talk) 18:23, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

You created a local Wikipedia page for a Commons file. The local page was deleted. --Stefan2 (talk) 22:53, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Hey Stefan—the page at Kim dynasty (North Korea) was a userspace draft and doesn't use any other page's history. If that's still a "copy-paste" move, how should I proceed? czar ♔ 01:50, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Hm, I missed that. Also, the only thing in Kim family which potentially could be above the threshold of originality is the template. I don't think that there is any advantage for copyright reasons to do things differently here, and as the current page seems to have been independently created from the original, moving in some other way might be a bad idea and might just risk causing confusion. I'll revert to your revision. --Stefan2 (talk) 02:17, 1 January 2014 (UTC)