File talk:Anna tenje.22g405.1322363.jpg

Permission

Permission är samma som föregående bilder. Vore till HJÄLP i stressen (sjukskriven av läkare) OM riggwelter kunde hlälpa till genom att KOPIAR allt från denna bild de bilder som stör riggwelter. Jag har inte tid, inte på länge. Mvh Jan Janwikifoto (talk) 20:18, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

I have gone through a number of your latest contributions and noticed that they all featured the same issue. Your permission is unclear, because you've put a broken link as confirmation of your copyright, even if you also happen to use the correct copyright tag in the same description. It is, in my opinion, not enough to post a broken link and "+ own" as your permission. Alright, someone else might not share my view on this, and if so, they are bound to say so in this discussion. But, this is all to protect you as a copyright holder, which I hope you understand. Riggwelter (talk) 20:42, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

Adding here that @Janwikifoto has used the same form of attribution (politik.in2pic.com) for several years and that it is his preferred way even though the server is down. It has been discussed many times on his talk page. Would it be possible for you @Riggwelter to revert all your No permission templates, or start a common discussion for them?

(I'm helping out after talking to Janwikifoto on the phone, and as some of the images are a result of a WMSE community support grant. We have also talked about the attribution and source info, and ways to move on from all discussions.) /Axel Pettersson (WMSE) (talk) 11:47, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

The issue is not the preferred way of contribution, nor that it has been discussed a number of times and approved of as such. The issue is the fact that the server used for contribution is down, and that the contributions cannot be verified according to the preferred method. Riggwelter (talk) 17:53, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

But as the source and author also has + Own, although without the template that should sort that. Or is the template {{Own}} required as such? /Axel Pettersson (WMSE) (talk) Axel Pettersson (WMSE) (talk) 06:48, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

Adding this template to photos uploaded by a long time established user is nothing but provocative. The source is clearly "own work" and the license is equally clearly CC-BY-SA 3.0. I will, regardless of your request, Riggwelter, remove this template again (so the photo not will be deleted until this discussion is finished).. /ℇsquilo 07:04, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

The absolutely easiest way of claiming copyright would probably be:

{{Information

|description=

English: Anna Tenje, kommunstyrelsens ordförande i Växjö kommun

Svenska: Anna Tenje, kommunstyrelsens ordförande i Växjö kommun

|date=2022-09-08 10:48:49

|Source=Own photograph

|Author=Janwikifoto

|Permission=See below

|other versions=

}}

...and then use the correct CC-BY-SA tag. Doing that would automatically exclude all issues with a site that doesn't work. @Esquilo Oh, and accusing me of being provocative is a bit unfair. There is nothing provocative in this. Riggwelter (talk) 07:07, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

It has since long been established that Janwikifoto wishes to have the photo attributed to his site rather than his person. A bit odd but acceptable. /ℇsquilo 07:10, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

Ping @Riggwelter. Asking again for you to revert all the No permission templates you added. As @Esquilo put it, @Janwikifoto is a long time established user with a special request for attribution, but it has been discussed and sorted out before. /Axel Pettersson (WMSE) (talk) 08:29, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

I'm a bit divided on this issue. The user's discussion page on Commons, as well as the user's continued refusal to talk about related problems is a bit worrysome. I'm not entirely sure the user acts in good faith, and a personal phone call from the user the other day did not do much to clarify different standpoints (I'm sorry I prematurely ended the phone call, but the discussion was not in any way fruitful). I'm not interested in looking at behaviour through legalistic means, but it seems the user is (of what I heard on the phone). So maybe I rest my case here, as I'm not personally involved.

Just wanted to vent some long-time frustration about possible acting in bad faith. Those of you that can really understand why the Source and License/Attribution fields are constantly along these lines, please enlighten me. Because I don't know why, and the user has never given a satisfactory answer on the issue. Paracel63 (talk) 10:41, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

Most images deleted by Fitindia now, but I have started a request for undeletion for all images. More input from Riggwelter, Esquilo and Paracel63 both here and there is welcome. /Axel Pettersson (WMSE) (talk) 08:02, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

I think much hassle could be avoided if Janwikifoto would use a custom CC-licence template. We already have almost 800 of them so one more would not harm. This template could be a bit less terse than the current attribution to make clear that:

1. The photo is "Own work" by User:Janwikifoto.
2. The photo is released under the license CC-BY-CA.
3. The author wishes to be attributed as http://politik.in2pic.com.

It would be beneficial if Jan could get his site up and running and there publish a verification that the photos uploaded by him to Commons indeed is his own work and licenced as CC-BY-CA. /ℇsquilo 08:59, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

Yes, this last modus operandi would be an ideal solution. I hold my fingers crossed that we can reach so far. On this discussion page we can agree that Janwikifoto wants to CC-licence his photos according to CC philosophy, but the method of doing so is – in my mind – somewhat subpar. Therefore it's unclear for others that don't reach this discussion page. And discussion with him on the subject has not always (or even most of the time) been especially helpful. Paracel63 (talk) 08:15, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

Sorry guys, I haven't been able to be on Wikipedia as much as I would have wanted in the past week/s - real life issues having to take precedence. As for the issue at hand: I really, really do not understand why there has to be an attribution to a non-functioning web site, when the easiest and simplest solution is for the photographer to attribute his work in line with my suggestion above (i e Commons 'standard', if ever there was one). I wager a guess that a majority of contributors to Wikimedia Commons use the attribution idea the way it's intended to be, i e by stating it is their own photograph, using the correct CC-BY-SA template and hey, Bob's your uncle. Few people would question a work attributed like that. Esquilo's suggestion above isn't bad as a compromise, but I fear that site will not be up and running any time soon, and I still think it would be easier and less debatable to follow the intended Commons 'standard', rather than starting a new custom tag. As long as we continue harping about adapting to one man's wishes, other contributors will see the copyright position as unclear. Riggwelter (talk) 11:23, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

All images restored now, and as the No permission has been removed here also I think this discussion can come to an end. When it comes to preferred ways of attribution and such of course it would be easier to user the standard way, but Janwikifoto takes another path. When talking to him last week we talked about using the standard way until the server is up and running again to make things easier and to avoid running in to the same discussions again and again. /Axel Pettersson (WMSE) (talk) 08:05, 18 October 2022 (UTC)