User talk:Ileanadu

Welcome to Wikimedia Commons, Ileanadu!

First steps tutorial Our first steps tour and our frequently asked questions will help you a lot after registration. They explain how to customize the interface (for example the language), how to upload files and our basic licensing policy (Wikimedia Commons only accepts free content). You don't need technical skills in order to contribute here. Be bold when contributing and assume good faith when interacting with others. This is a wiki. Getting help More information is available at the community portal. You may ask questions at the help desk, village pump or on IRC channel #wikimedia-commons (webchat). You can also contact an administrator on their talk page. If you have a specific copyright question, ask at the copyright village pump.

Goodies, tips, and tricks Put Babel boxes on your user page so others know what languages you can speak and indicate your graphic abilities. You can find the files you have uploaded in your Uploads. Please sign your name on Talk pages by typing ~~~~. To link to an image page without embedding the image, type: [[:File:Foo.jpg]], which produces: File:Foo.jpg. You may enable gadgets (custom features) for your account. There are several tools to upload files. Have you edited Wikipedia before? This guide might be useful. Made a mistake? Do you want to have a file renamed or moved? Use the move link and wait for an authorized user to rename it. Do you want to have your recently uploaded picture removed? Tag it as {{speedy|reason here}}. For more information read the deletion guidelines.

-- Wikimedia Commons Welcome (talk) 13:28, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Copyright status: File:Erehwon announces new name.png

Copyright status: File:Erehwon announces new name.png

This media may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading File:Erehwon announces new name.png. I notice that the file page either doesn't contain enough information about the license or it contains contradictory information about the license, so the copyright status is unclear. If you created this file yourself, then you must provide a valid copyright tag. For example, you can tag it with {{self|GFDL|cc-by-sa-all}} to release it under the multi-license GFDL plus Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike All-version license or you can tag it with {{PD-self}} to release it into the public domain. (See Commons:Copyright tags for the full list of license tags that you can use.) If you did not create the file yourself or if it is a derivative of another work that is possibly subject to copyright protection, then you must specify where you found it (e.g. usually a link to the web page where you got it), you must provide proof that it has a license that is acceptable for Commons (e.g. usually a link to the terms of use for content from that page), and you must add an appropriate license tag. If you did not create the file yourself and the specific source and license information is not available on the web, you must obtain permission through the VRT system and follow the procedure described there. Note that any unsourced or improperly licensed files will be deleted one week after they have been marked as lacking proper information, as described in criteria for deletion. If you have uploaded other files, please confirm that you have provided the proper information for those files, too. If you have any questions about licenses please ask at Commons:Village pump/Copyright or see our help pages. Thank you.

Yours sincerely, JuTa 00:45, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

Hi, I apologize if I violated copyright rules for posting a picture. The picture was a screenshot of a publicly available photo/post on Facebook:

https://www.facebook.com/ErehwonMtnOutfitter/photos/a.521090341250053/2796180430407688/?type=3&theater

I haven't posted photos before so I'm not familiar with the procedures. Anyone can see this photo/post - even people not registered as Facebook users. I used the screenshot so I could have one of the comments - again publicly available - prominently displayed. That was done in order to back up the two parts of my statement: 1) That Erehwon was undergoing a name change, and 2) that one of the founders of Erehwon did not like the name change. I could have just included the same link I used here and the photo would have shown up, but there are several comments to the photo and I only needed one particular comment to verify my point. The portion of the photo that includes the comment is not itself a copyrighted work. The person creating the comment didn't create the image - the appearance of the comment -- it's just how Facebook presents comments visually.

So, how is a publicly available Facebook photo/post not in the public domain and not fair use for discussing the organization - a retailer - who posted that photo and made it publicly available?

I wasn't in any way appropriating or interfering with the original copyright, but was using a photo of that post - in the same way I might use a photo of a snippet of a larger work for a discussion. To use it as a source for the facts that it represents. So if I said "Stephen King contributed a blurb" to a book I might show a photo of the blurb from the book cover. It seems to me that is a fair use - a discussion about what should be included in a wikipedia article - an online encyclopedia hosted by a nonprofit - is a combination of "comment, news reporting, ... scholarship, and research." https://www.copyright.gov/fair-use/more-info.html

Cordially, Ileanadu (talk) 00:58, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

File:Erehwon announces new name.png

File:Erehwon announces new name.png has been marked as a possible copyright violation. Wikimedia Commons only accepts free content—that is, images and other media files that can be used by anyone, for any purpose. Traditional copyright law does not grant these freedoms, and unless noted otherwise, everything you find on the web is copyrighted and not permitted here. For details on what is acceptable, please read Commons:Licensing. You may also find Commons:Copyright rules useful, or you can ask questions about Commons policies at the Commons:Help desk. If you are the copyright holder and the creator of the file, please read Commons:But it's my own work! for tips on how to provide evidence of that. The file you added has been deleted. If you have written permission from the copyright holder, please have them send us a free license release via COM:VRT. If you believe that the deletion was not in accordance with policy, you may request undeletion. (It is not necessary to request undeletion if using VRT; the file will be automatically restored at the conclusion of the process.) Warning: Wikimedia Commons takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

 

--EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:08, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

Hi Eugene Zelenko,

I apologize if I broke Wikipedia rules for posting copyrighted material. I certainly don't intend to be a "persistent violator." I incorrectly, I guess, assumed that a talk/discussion page about a particular subject would be given more leeway than if the picture were included in the article itself since it's similar to commentary/criticism about the subject. What is being discussed is whether something should be included in an article. Showing a picture was just the easiest way to make clear what the subject (Erehwon, the retailer) is and to include some facts. However, they're both equally available for public viewing, I guess.

News articles all the time include a link to, for example, a tweet to demonstrate something about the subject of the article. This article, for example, includes a link to a tweet, which becomes an image of the tweet, just because that's what html does with links. I'm not sure how a screenshot of a tweet, for example, would be treated as a violation of copyright when the image of the tweet that appears automatically would not. Perhaps it's because when the original image is deleted the linked image also disappears?

I note that the notice posted earlier on the same day as this post of yours says: "Note that any unsourced or improperly licensed files will be deleted one week after they have been marked as lacking proper information, as described in criteria for deletion." However your post/warning from just a few hours later says you deleted the image. I realize it's been way more than a week, but for future reference, will there be a week before deletion after a warning or is it subject to be deleting at any point after a warning?

Cordially, Ileanadu (talk) 01:35, 9 November 2019 (UTC)