User talk:Lantus/Archiv/2011
Copyright status: File:Ludwig Boslet.jpg[edit]
This media may be deleted. |
Thanks for uploading File:Ludwig Boslet.jpg. 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. |
Quedel (talk) 17:52, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
File:Erdmann_Signatur.jpg has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.
If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues. |
JuTa (talk) 21:53, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
Wiki Loves Monuments 2011 has finished[edit]
Dear Lantus/Archiv,
Thank you for contributing to Wiki Loves Monuments and sharing your pictures with the whole world. You are very welcome to keep uploading images, even though you can't win prizes any longer. To get started on editing relevant Wikipedia articles, click here for more information and help. |
- Message delivered by Lucia Bot in 22:52, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
File:Gumby&Pokey.jpg has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.
If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues. |
Leoboudv (talk) 21:24, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
- In the flickr photo, the image is licensed freely but they are of the actual Gumby & Pokey toy characters...which are copyrighted by the company that owns their rights and created them. So, the company could sue Commons for using the image here and claiming that it is copyright free when it is actually a derivative image...a photo of an unfree, copyrighted object. For example, if I take a picture of an actual LEGO toy object (rather than Gumby or Pokey) and upload it here, it it will be deleted because LEGO owns the copyright to the actual toy object...and I am a third party only. In this case, the flickr account owner should have licensed his flickr image as 'All Rights Reserved.' It was not your mistake, it was the flickrowner's error. Thank You, --Leoboudv (talk) 05:55, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
File:Geistkircher Kapelle.jpg 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.
|
—LX (talk, contribs) 00:51, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
- http://www.panoramio.com/photo/17729311 is marked {{Cc-by-nc-sa-3.0}} (a non-free license), not {{Cc-by-sa-3.0}}. —LX (talk, contribs) 00:53, 25 February 2012 (UTC)