User talk:Infrogmation/Archive 7

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search

This is an archive of older talk for User:Infrogmation

April 2009[edit]

Tag on Stephen Payne Speaking at NATO.jpg[edit]

Please look at the copyright laws of latvia (below the image in question) -- these laws clearly state that an image is not copywritten and in the public domain if: "#4 information provided in the press, radio or television broadcasts or other information media concerning news of the day and various facts and events;" -- this image clearly meets those requirements as it was a Government sponsored public event.Polticaltexan (talk) 00:32, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Nopenis[edit]

Template:Nopenis[edit]

Template:Nopenis has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

If you created this template, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it.

Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!
Afrikaans ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ bosanski ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ ∙ eesti ∙ English ∙ español ∙ Esperanto ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ hrvatski ∙ íslenska ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ occitan ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ polski ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ shqip ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ suomi ∙ svenska ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ Türkçe ∙ Zazaki ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ ∙ български ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ српски / srpski ∙ українська ∙ հայերեն ∙ বাংলা ∙ മലയാളം ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ ไทย ∙ 조선말 ∙ 한국어 ∙ 日本語 ∙ 简体中文‎ ∙ 繁體中文‎ ∙ עברית ∙ العربية ∙ پښتو ∙ فارسی ∙ ދިވެހިބަސް ∙ +/−

--Lx 121 (talk) 07:44, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

i'm sorry, i like most of what you have contributed, but i feel quite strongly that this template is wrong, a violation of policy, & should go. If someone doesn't like nudity, or human sexuality, they don't have to look. I would be willing to support a system to identify images with so-called "adult-content" (although that is a slippery slope & could lead to the creation of a lot of "quasi cencorship" categories, to avoid offending people). but censorship of images that fall within wm policy & guidelines is fundamentally wrong, & a violation of what we are doing here. If we start taking down, or restricting, or limiting certain images, to avoid "offending" people, where do we stop? NNPOV would dictate that we should be fair & apply such rules equally to everyone & everything on here. I can think of quite a lot of material on WMC that would offend somebody, or some group of people. We should NOT go down this path!

I'm willing to accept that you created the template in good faith & good homour, but it should go. It's not representative of wm policy, & it is far too "blank cheque"; it invites abuse, & is being abused.

Lx 121 (talk) 07:44, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thanks for the detailed explanation; I replied on the deletion request page. As I note there, the template was not intented to be a policy; it was simply created as a canned message to save effort in typing the same thing over and over on user talk pages. The community can discuss what is best to do with it. Cheers, -- Infrogmation (talk) 12:33, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

2 images by Urban[edit]

There are 2 copy vios by Urban in these 2 DR's by me: DR and DR They cannot be kept. They have been here for years. See my second DR for Urban's incorrect reading of Common's licenses.

As an aside, please consider marking these 2 images if possible:

They are correctly licensed and are good photos. Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 19:59, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:MacArthur Manila.jpg[edit]

Hi Infrogmation. I'm not sure what you are trying to do with that file--we obviously have a different interpretation of what information is important! I apologize if it seemed like an edit war, but you were deleting relevant things like the language tagging, so I wasn't sure you knew what you were doing.

I don't think the bot has added anything that could be called "wrong" (though there is some garbage, like the categories, which are crazy). I agree that in the case of the Source, Date, and Author, the original description should be used foremost (or perhaps exclusively). But I would err on the side of keeping (though downgrading in importance) almost all of what the bot added, because:

  • it is all information (not misinformation) that is helpful in tracing the 'chain of custody' between the Naval Historic Center website and Wikimedia Commons--even the comment about templates, which you described as a "glitch" in the bot. I think it is important to keep all the information possible, because the original image page on Wikipedia is eventually deleted.
  • much of what the bot added is added as comments, which are invisible to the viewer anyway; nothing is gained by deleting any of that information.
  • to me, the phrases "original upload log" and "original description page" (as added by the bot, which you deleted, describing it as "false information") imply a frame of reference within Wikimedia. In other words, it doesn't imply that the uploader at Wikipedia created or scanned the image themselves, just that the image was first uploaded to another Wikimedia project (which had its own upload log and description page) before being transferred to Commons. I don't think that's ambiguous enough to require rephrasing, especially when the image source is quite clearly defined as the Naval Historic Center website.

In short, I would keep most of what the bot writes, with the exception of irrelevant categories and the undue weight given to upload dates/descriptions over file dates/descriptions in the infobox. Sorry for the long comment, but I like to discuss things! Do you know of any page that summarizes a user consensus on how these image description pages should be dealt with, or do we just have an irreconcilable difference of opinion? - Gump Stump (talk) 23:14, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Old car[edit]

Regarding File:LakesideMAStuffedAnimalCar.jpg. Could it be an Oakland Sedan, or a Model A body sitting on an Oakland chassis? JJLudemann (talk) 22:54, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think you've got it. I've changed the category to Oakland, with the identification noted with a question mark in the description. Thank you! -- Infrogmation (talk) 23:46, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rekha image[edit]

Hi, thanks for closing Commons:Deletion requests/File:Rekha2.jpg. I just saw the complete image at File:Rekha.jpg. Could you delete this too or shall I make another deletion request for it? Garion96 (talk) 09:43, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Never mind. Already taken care of. Garion96 (talk) 13:31, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Kombi Luxo rosa.jpg[edit]

Hi,

you deleted the above picture last night. Could you please specify the source so that I can try to get a permission? Thank you. --blunt. (talk) 07:01, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • A tineye.com search showed several versions of the same image, eg [1] [2] (Do a similar search using any one of them and you'll find more). I don't know what the original source and license of the photo is (maybe you can find out spending more time poking around than I did). The Commons uploader listed the source as "internet", making it clear he was not the creator of the image and did not have rights to license it, so I deleted. Cheers, -- Infrogmation (talk) 20:06, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the information. I will probably go with a different picture. -- blunt. (talk) 17:28, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Nehru and a visitor at his Delhi home.jpg[edit]

Hello,

The reason for your deletion is not right. Please read {{PD-India}}, where it is written: "... photographs ... enter the public domain 60 years after the date on which they were first published." The pity here is that I uploaded the image, and I proposed it for deletion when I found that the photographer is French, but the debate doesn't answer the only important question which is "Do we apply Indian copyright law or French copyright law?" Yann (talk) 19:43, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Is there some indication that the photo was published in India 60 or more years ago? If so share that information, and I can undelete. My understanding and reason for closing the discussion as delete was that none of the various PD-India possibilities had been demonstrated, and I saw no publication info on the image page. Cheers, -- Infrogmation (talk) 19:59, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

May 2009[edit]

File:Gira Teletón 2007 - María José Quintanilla y Rafael Araneda.jpg[edit]

Hello. When we're talking about 'Fashion' we should mean 'Model' or someone whom in this picture only for showing a kind of cloths. In this photo we got two people singing, has nothing to do with fashion (they weren't there to show their cloths). It would be so useless if we put all photos for all people in 200X in a category. Instead, we can subcategorizing to clearer category which will help the user getting use of our 4-million library. Hope you see the same point. Please restore my edit.--OsamaK 18:53, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. No, fashion is not just models. en:Fashion is how people dress, common people as well. The style people dress at a certain time is the fashion of the era. The point of recent categories like "[[Category:Fashion in 2007" may not be obvious, but look at older categories like Category:Fashion in 1925 or Category:Fashion in 1976 and you will see people dressed differently. In 10 or 20 years people shown in Category:Fashion in 2007 will also be obviously different than the current fashion.
I add examples that seem to me good examples of how people are dressed. Im am interested in history and think this sort of thing is interesting and can be useful documentation.
I don't know subcategories are needed now, but if you think so, we can create some. Ideas: Maybe Models could be seperated into "Fashion models in 2007". Female fashion in [year], Male fashion in [year]. Other thoughts? Thank you. -- Infrogmation (talk) 22:00, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment[edit]

Dear Admin Infrogmation,

This is a FlickrLickr image which means it was licensed freely on a "cc by 2.0" license when it was first uploaded here.

If it was not licensed freely, the FlickrLickr bot could not upload it. Nilfanion's bot tagged it for an unnecessary flickr review because it cannot tell that it was a FlickrLickr image. Bots, unlike humans, are not smart. I probably have to ask Tryphon about the situation...is this art which means US FOP applies or is it just a barrier which means Commons can keep it. --Leoboudv (talk) 09:06, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As an aside, there are thousands of FlickrLickr images on Commons including this image:

Nice photo[edit]

Hey Infrogmation. I would just like to take a moment of my time to say what a nice picture -> File:SolarCarNashvilleAveNOLA1.jpg! Please keep uploading more photos of yours ;) Best regards, --Kanonkas(talk) 18:00, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

PD review[edit]

I see you've been helping with PD review. As you're an admin and shown this interest, which is appreciated, I've added you here: Commons:PD_files/reviewers#List_of_PD_reviewers — Rlevse • Talk • 11:41, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bot moves[edit]

Point taken.

BTW If you are able to assist, I was trying to add {{Information}} boxes on the enwiki side. That's why you seemingly got bot-spam on the old Record labels.

If you are also able to assist in cat cleanup on the moves I made since Mid Janurary, feel free.

Initialy, I had been leaving the bot move tags on , (but was told not to do this by others on the Commons IRC channel), precisely because of the mess left by the auto categorisation. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 18:51, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That IRC advice doesn't make sense to me. Removing the bot move tag doesn't fix any bot generated mess, it just removes the flag that that says "Someone should check this, there may be a mess here". -- Infrogmation (talk) 19:29, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
OK, That means I've got 6 months worth of contribs to check :(

Better get started :( Sfan00 IMG (talk) 20:53, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User:Cathytreks[edit]

You indef blocked this user awhile back. She's now back and editing under her old IP again (User:74.74.75.181) - including harassment/threats. No one else edits under her IP, so a long block won't have collateral damage. Rklawton (talk) 11:44, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

LOC image[edit]

You actually replaced it with a 6.55 MB size file? Dial-up people don't like to wait on an article to load because the image is taking forever... - ALLST✰R▼echo wuz here @ 13:38, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bofill[edit]

Thanks for your speedy deletion of the Bofill image, you work a lot faster then I do, I was going to try and create a mass deletion request (i think i've made a mess of todays deletion page which will need tidying up), but don't have much experience of doing so. There are about a dozen or so other images which are probably from that source which I feel happier about nominating for speedy now. again thanks.KTo288 (talk) 18:21, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Images[edit]

Thanks for helping to clean up the backlog on 'bot-moved' images :)

I've got no objections to you looking through back contribs.:) Sfan00 IMG (talk) 14:24, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion of copyvio[edit]

Please see Commons:Deletion requests/File:Male-piss movies2.jpg and act. I've also tagged other images from this user as copyvios and nommed one of his uploads for deletion since it's already on Commons under a different name. Thanks. - ALLST✰R▼echo wuz here @ 11:36, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nevermind, it's been taken care of. - ALLST✰R▼echo wuz here @ 11:40, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Undeletion[edit]

Thank you to restore immediatly the following pictures :

File:RER C - Gare des Invalides (5).jpg

File:RER C - Gare des Invalides (8).jpg

I am the author and the uploader of those pictures. I will add the correct infos. You may be could have write a message to me before to delete without any warning those pictures. Plus, they are part of a set and the others pictures have a correct license. Be an admin doesn't exclude you to made usage of some discerment when erasing pictures. greenski (talk) 16:10, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I did not delete those images, and they still exist here. - Infrogmation (talk) 22:50, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

deleted image?[edit]

You closed this deletion nomination, but a file still exists here. Are they the same file? — pd_THOR | =/\= | 00:16, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, same uploader and photo of same person, but different photo. This one says it has an OTRS permission. -- Infrogmation (talk) 14:27, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strange block[edit]

Hi. I was curious why you blocked 82.57.82.6 (talk · contribs) for an entire year for vandalism? The IP made a single edit and that was over six months ago. Is there checkuser involvement? Wknight94 talk 03:04, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I took damage done into consideration too. -- Infrogmation (talk) 14:30, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Faked Flickr clearance[edit]

Hi Infrogmation,
this file File:Ensaios2.jpg was uploaded already with your Flickr clearance, probably a fake. --Túrelio (talk) 21:07, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Yes, forged, I made no such review. I checked Flickr for any images "Roberta Indio" and saw no match. As the uploader has previous copyright violations, warnings, and this seems a blatant forgery of false permission, I have blocked the uploader. Thank you for the notice. -- Infrogmation (talk) 00:56, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks...[edit]

for your statement here. I was concerning about "Underwood & Underwood", if public domain is possible. In addition your way of discussion is definately more friendly than the one of the otherone in that DR. Bye, High Contrast (talk) 15:24, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Sussy5.jpg[edit]

Hi. It looks like you deleted File:Sussy5.jpg, but forgot to close the DR. Could you take a look? Thanks, –Juliancolton | Talk 21:32, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]


June 2009[edit]

botchecking[edit]

this is at commons.. [[3]]

and this is at en.... [[4]]

I looked and could see the transfer was complete... what is wrong with the transfer?

regards (Off2riorob (talk) 21:44, 3 June 2009 (UTC))[reply]

The bot screwed it up with garbage. Please look at the text, not just the image. Athaenara fixed the worst of it, which was bot related markup problems which made the entire section displaying the description and actual source NOT VISIBLE, just a big blank. Look at versions in history. I'll fix some other junk. Very wrong indeed. -- Infrogmation (talk) 15:16, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Columbia 5pts aerial.jpg Deletion[edit]

Hello Infrogmation,

I have several questions about this deletion. The first question is that the reason named "GFDL licensed images copied without the required attribution are copyright violations." is not clear for me. What do you mean in this case, which attribution do you mean?

I am one of the administrators on zh-wp who patrol through the files uploaded there from the users. Images that are released from the user as GFDL and which has certain quality are uploaded from me to Commons and then deleted on the local project. This is to my understand what Commons for. It is important for me to understand where here is the problem to avoid future problems because I totally agree with you that copyright issue is very important for Commons and at the same time it doesn't make sense to keep free images on several local projects. So a clarification would be appreciated.--Wing (talk) 07:31, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The GNU Free Documentation License is not the same as being PD. Preserving authorship credit is required. Copying a GFDL file without attribution breaks the license. In this case you neglected to give any credit to the creator of the file. -- Infrogmation (talk) 11:58, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am not quite sure what you mean. I thought in the upload formular I had wrote the username of the original author? (Maybe I am wrong, it is some time back, I cannot remember every detail). Or do you mean I should keep the original image on zh-wp so that the authorship and history is granted? Again I need to understand this so that I would not make such a failure again. Thanks for the explaination.--Wing (talk) 14:10, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That particular image you transfered 2 years ago, and didn't give any attribution-- no mention of the photographer/original uploader at en:Wikipedia at all. When transfering images to Commons be sure to include the information from the description page; these are often deleted from the local Wiki after the image is availible on Commons. I restored the local copy on en:Wikipedia for this one. I see more recent transfers you've done that have given proper credit. Maybe you just forgot to add the info with that one. I wanted to alert you about it in case you didn't know GFDL licensed files needed to be attributed. Cheers, -- Infrogmation (talk) 19:18, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much for the explanation. I will be more careful the next time.--Wing (talk) 04:52, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nixon in Ottawa[edit]

Thanks for the note. I'm not sure that I agree with you that the "US by decade categories show things within the USA". We are supposed to assess categories on what they reasonably could contain, not what they may happen to contain at any given time. How much poorer would these decade categories be if they could not contain images relevant to the American experience in a given decade, but that happen to have been taken abroad (files like this, this, this and this, all synonymous with the United States and the relevant decades, would be excluded from this category tree (not that the Nixon in Ottawa image is nearly as notable as those)). I am also not aware of any discussion limiting these categories in that way (although let me know if I have missed it). However, your compromise suggestion of creating a category along the lines of "International relations of the United States in the [decade]" would work, at least insofar as this image is concerned, so thanks for that. Regards, --skeezix1000 (talk) 18:50, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

MysticShade sockpuppets[edit]

As Herbythyme is away could you possibly take care of these accounts and associated image uploads please?

Thank you. O Fenian (talk) 23:26, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Policy changed?[edit]

Hi Infrogmation, I'm wondering about the following list (It's not complete). Have I missed a policy change here? But there are still the both old templates as Copyright not renewed and the other. And why I don't get a note about this? And why one should ask for a deletion request Commons:Deletion_requests/Image:Gladys_George,_Bob_Burns_-I'm_from_Missouri,1939.jpg , when another can make it speedy. Is commons finally a playground for bored admins with bad manners? I am really astonished. Regards Mutter Erde 85.181.243.158 19:16, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    • Hello. Have I done something rude? If so please point it out; rudeness is rarely my intention. As far as I can tell, I have had no connection to most of the images you list. For many, it looks like User:Klodl tagged them for speedy deletion and User:Zirland deleted them. I think a deletion request rather than a speedy tag would have been more appropriate unless Klodl had evidence the copyright statement was false. You might wish to ask Klodl and Zirland about them. You might wish to request undeletion, especially if you can show some evidence in support of the copyright status which Klodl apparently disputed. Does that answer your question, or part of it? If there something I did in relation to these images which I've forgotten, let me know; I checked the history for some of them and didn't see any edits or action by me. I'm not sure what you're asking me about. If you can please be more specific, maybe I'll have a better answer. Thanks -- Infrogmation (talk) 19:49, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Hi, thank you. The reason, I have showed you this case is simply that you are NOT involved :-). I have shown some of these redlinks to others as Lupo and Clindberg, but they are - how should I say - a bit confused too. It's a bit complicated. But my first question is only: Has commons changed its policy? Or in other words: Why commons is still keeping these both templates for promo pics until 1964, when in fact these sstuff gets deleted with no (or a fake) reason? Regards Mutter Erde 85.181.243.158 21:45, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • I am not aware of any policy change. From what I've looked at, I tend to think that unless Klodl had some specific info that the license was wrong, Klodl was too fast to tag them as speedy rather than a chalenge at COM:DR. Zirland may have been to quick to accept the speedy tag without checking. If you got no notice, I agree that was inappropriate. The speedy delete tag specifically says that the uploader should be notified, and includes a copy & paste template to make doing so easy. I question Klodl's procedures here. You might wish to check with the deleting admin. Unless either Klodl or the deleter has a specific reason why they think the images are copyright violations, I would support undeletion as inappropriate speedy deletions without proper notification of the uploader. -- Infrogmation (talk) 23:08, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, it's a time-consuming work to search for nice big files, check their copyright status, give a description to these "stars" from the old days starring in forgotten films, often never released in Germany. You, me and every troll can tag files within some seconds for a speedy delete.
I have found some more links by Klodl. [5]+ [6], [7], [8].
But why someone like Klodl gets any support? Zirland is no newbie, I guess. And the next question would be: How many more files he has deleted with no reason? And why he is still an admin? Regards Mutter Erde 78.48.19.183 16:12, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Photo of Jan Brewer[edit]

I e-mailed Jan Brewer's office and they responded that the photo can be used. I uploaded the photo and I was wondering if there is anything else I need to do? (File:Governor Jan Brewer.jpg) Thanks -- Tennisace101 11 June 2009 (UTC)

  • Thanks for emailing them to check. Two things: 1)The permission you quote at File:Governor Jan Brewer.jpg doesn't specify a license-- it says "you can use" it; we need to be sure that anyone can reuse it as long as they abide by the license. Unless you already have confirmation that they authorize the free use attribution license you tagged the image with, I think it would be a good idea to check with them that the license is okay with them. If they have questions, you might wish to point them to Commons:Licensing#Acceptable_licenses for other acceptable licenses. 2)Once you have info confirming the license, forward a copy of the email to Commons:OTRS per the instructions there. Then the license will be on record with Wikimedia, and everything should be taken care of. Thanks again. Cheers, -- Infrogmation (talk) 22:48, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Image help[edit]

Hi neighbor - 'cause I'm in Mississippi -, could you help me out with File:Eudora Welty.jpg please? It's on one government site, which they attribute to another gov't agency, LOC, but I can't find it at LOC to get details such as photographer and date. What do I need to do to get this image compliant or is it fine under the general gov't license? - ALLST✰R▼echo wuz here @ 05:57, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Good question. Okay, I went to loc.gov. Then I did a search for "Eudora Welty", then clicked the "Prints & Photographs Online Catalog" only, and redid the search (usually a good way to find LOC images). It turned up 3 images, none of which match this one, and all of which are restricted (not PD). All I can say is that Welty looks older here than her 1962 photo at LOC and younger than the 1980 LOC photo. I'm not sure what to say about the photo you uploaded. I don't know that the PD-USGov tag is accurate; no indication that this is a Federal Government work-- while the majority of the LOC's online photos are PD for various reasons, a large number (maybe the majority) did not originate as Federal Government works. I'd guess it's likely to be PD, since if there were any restrictions on it LOC usually gives credit and information. Though I guess there's a possibility that it should have been credited and isn't through some sloppiness by whoever made that webpage. Sorry I can't tell you anything more useful. I suppose you could try emailing and asking. Cheers, -- Infrogmation (talk) 13:11, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks for looking. I would hope that if it weren't PD, the NEH.gov site where the photo is would credit the source instead of the LOC as it does. I've found her image on several gov sites and they all credit the actual source such as her estate museum or Associated Press.. this is the only one I found that credited another gov agency so it does seem plausible that it's PD. Again, thanks for looking. - ALLST✰R▼echo wuz here @ 17:41, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Poland Ave gas station[edit]

Is there a name for the gas station you have multiple photos of on Poland Avenue, Upper 9th Ward? I would like to put them under a category. Xnatedawgx (talk) 02:02, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't recall the name for the vacant gas station. It is at the corner of Poland Avenue and Robertson Street, if a geographic identifier is helpful. It probably had a name, but I didn't see any signage naming it when I photographed it. It might be identified by a pre-Katrina New Orleans phone book/yellow pages; I don't have one handy at present. Sorry I'm not much help there. -- Infrogmation (talk) 01:01, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See here[edit]

Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems#User:Adambro Drork (talk) 14:52, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Question[edit]

Hi, I have a question. I don't know all the ins and outs of uploading pics vis a vis copyright, but am I correct in understanding that only public domain pics can be used on the Commons, and that copyrighted pics can only be used on Wikipedia under Fair Use? I used to think that copyrighted pics could used on WP if permission of the author was obtained, but then I learned that pics can only be used under Fair Use and P.D. circumstances. I ask, because the Summary on this pic's page indicates that "permission" was given to upload it. Wouldn't this indicate that it's copyright protected? I tried going to the talk page of the user who uploaded it, but it's been deleted.

Part of what spurred me to ask is that the subject of a Biography of Living Persons article, one who has taken an extremely strong interest in his article, and has at times employed my assistance in addressing issues of privacy and sourcing in his article, has requested that the photo in his article be changed, and had indicated that he has "permission" of the person who took it.

Can you explain to me the ins and outs of this, or point me to someone who can? I don't use Commons talk pages much, so can you respond to me here? Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 00:09, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Images on Commons don't have to be public domain, but they do have to be free licensed. See Commons:Licensing#Acceptable_licenses for an explanation and overview. "Permission" can be a vague term. Commons doesn't accept, for example "you have permission to put in such-and-so Wikipedia article". The permission needs to be a type of free license-- so that not just Wikipedia can use it, but anyone can, as long as they abide by the terms of the license (for example a Creative Commons license requiring attribution crediting the photographer by name). If a third party (someone other than the user doing the uploader) has given permission to allow a copyrighted work to be reused under a free license, Commons policy is to get a confirmation of permission by email kept as a record of the permission; see Commons:OTRS for how to do that. I hope this helps; if you have more questions you can't find an answer to, feel free to ask. Cheers, -- Infrogmation (talk) 00:58, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I just noticed the image File:Mia_St_John_1.jpg is tagged as having OTRS permission on file. If you have a question about it or see some potential problem, Commons:OTRS/Noticeboard is the place to bring it up. Thanks. - Infrogmation (talk) 01:07, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your speedy reply. But what exactly is the difference between public domain images and free licensed ones? Isn't the practical effect the same--namely, that anyone can use it for any reason? When I release my images, I use the Attribution license, which means all someone has to do to use it is to credit it to me. What's the difference between this and p.d.? If the person I mentioned uploads it to Commons on a free license, in what practical way, or for what extents or purposes does he/she retain the copyright? Nightscream (talk) 06:11, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not a lawyer; I'm sure some other people can give a much more nuanced explanation. The end result may be similar in that the works are allowed to be reused without payment, but legally the two things are quite different. My understanding is that public domain is a legal construct, refering to stuff that is out of copyright. Free licenses like Creative Commons attribution are not public domain; works licensed under CC-by- for example are still under copyright but the copyright holder has allowed them to be reused under generous terms. (Note that reuse of an attribution required licensed work without attribution is a copyright violation. There is no legal requirement for attribution of public domain works, but Wikimedia tries to include author credit when known because it seems a good policy to have information availible.) -- Infrogmation (talk) 13:45, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

reply.[edit]

I have replied on my talk. Please don't suggest that I am removeing templates without checking, (Off2riorob (talk) 23:43, 20 June 2009 (UTC))[reply]

Please apply good faith and if you can complain then I am sure it would be better to help. (Off2riorob (talk) 23:47, 20 June 2009 (UTC))[reply]

User:sputnik99[edit]

  1. what's the reason for your question? I don't understand it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by User:Sputnik99 (talk • contribs)

I replied on my talk page http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Sputnik99

User:sputnik99 again

Permission was sent sputnik99

Speedy help[edit]

Hi Infrogmation - could you please have File:Transgender at NYC Gay Pride Parade by David Shankbone.jpg speedy deleted, as it is causing the subject distress? --David Shankbone (talk) 22:18, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The naked truth[edit]

First of all, I refined the cats to the appropriate categories. I dropped the other two, because ... really ... the placement of that image is gratuitous advertisement for suicide girls. I'll add the telephone one back in ... perhaps we should create Category:naked people looking up? Evrik (talk) 04:18, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Images which may have been uploaded with intent to promote something specific, if free licensed, may be potentially useful in additional ways as well. Categories can indicate things the image is relevent to and potentially useful in illustrating, whether or not the uploader had that in mind or not. -- Infrogmation (talk) 17:58, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

1963 Cleopatra trailer screenshot[edit]

Hello,

Regarding Commons:Deletion requests/File:1963 Cleopatra trailer screenshot (40).jpg, I wonder why you deleted the first image and closed the DR without completely addressing the issue. Isn't the uploader to prove that the movie is not copyrighted? The rationale is the same for all images in the category, so why deleting one and not the rest? Not that I really care, but wondering... Yann (talk) 18:48, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

At 4' 36" there's a note: Released by 20th Century Fox. http://www.archive.org/details/Cleopatratrailer1963 Is this a copyright notice?
Anyway, the company had to renew the copyright of the trailer (= the first publication) separately 28 years later. But no major company did. For films, which were released in 1964/65/66 ff, were was no longer a need to the renew the copyright for its trailer or its first published promotion stuff seperately, because the American law has changed. Mutter Erde 78.49.55.122 21:01, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I closed it on narrow grounds. While I this was technically per Commons protocal, looking at it more it seems to leave relevent questions unanswered, so I have reopened the deletion request and added some more comments. Thanks for the feedback. -- Infrogmation (talk) 23:58, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Checking again.[edit]

Again? Well, what I can tell you is that I would have a good look at the information and transfer it and have a good look to see if the information had turned up and then saved it. I can only say that perhaps I was not allowing enough time to check, I should have had a longer look... In my defence.. I have transfered over 1200 pictures from wiki en and if 3 or 4 have been a bit wrong then I am sorry. I have now stopped checking them and leave them for a trusted user to check. If you like I can also stop transfering them. I was not doing it to be destructive. I can see from the diffs that the original source and date were missing, and the description and the cats were wrong..I stopped the bot doing that by stopping it using wikisense .(Off2riorob (talk) 00:08, 30 June 2009 (UTC))[reply]

Yes? Is that enough for you? Can you help? (Off2riorob (talk) 20:16, 1 July 2009 (UTC))[reply]
  • I was not trying to discourage you from transfering useful files. Please do so if you wish, thanks. I was trying to discourage you from removing the bot move notice from images with what seems to me to be very obvious problems in need of correction. When transfering images, I encourage you to take time to check the images and their descriptions-- meaning make sure everything displays ok, and that all the information fields appear to be accurate. At least a basic check of the categories is helpful too-- not that you're expected to have everything in the best possible categories when you're not too familiar with the subject, but the bot sometimes generates suggested categories that any human looking at them can tell are wildly inaccurate, so at least removing the most bizarre and obviously wrong ones helps. If you're willing to take the time to look at the images you transfer and make corrections as needed, great! That's an excellent help to the project. If there are some details you don't understand, ask. If you don't care to take time to review the uploads, well then, don't remove the bot move notice. The bot move notice is an alert that the image was removed by a bot that often mangles things, so there may be misinformation, and the image info can benifit from human review. In short, either do the review, or don't remove the notice. Thanks much. Cheers, -- Infrogmation (talk) 22:52, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Right, thanks. I'll take your advice on board. Regards. (Off2riorob (talk) 09:05, 3 July 2009 (UTC))[reply]


Footer[edit]

Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Infrogmation/Archive_7&oldid=31586948"