User talk:Paradise Chronicle/Archive/2022

Copyright status: File:Du July 1943 Air.jpg

Copyright status: File:Du July 1943 Air.jpg

This media may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading File:Du July 1943 Air.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.

And also:

• File:Du November 1941.jpg

Yours sincerely, Yann (talk) 19:38, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

Hi, well, this is a similar problem like the other ones I had but this time I saw that another cover the Du File:Du 1941 Titel.jpg was already uploaded where it is stated that the copyright law of its country of origin only lasts for 70 years and both 1941 and 1943 are over 75 years ago, so I thought this might pass.03:12, 29 April 2022 (UTC) Paradise Chronicle (talk) 03:12, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

Hi, Yann, as to me this deletion is a selective application of the tools. Where can I put a vote to desysop you? Sorry, this is just not welcoming.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 03:17, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

Well, the date is wrong, there is no license, "author=Screenshot" is clearly not OK, and threats won't lead you anywhere. Do you have more information? Yann (talk) 07:52, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

Hi thanks for the reply. I saw you restored the file. I'll get to it right now, that's just an quick answer to smooth the atmosphere.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 10:57, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

It seems you didn't restore the file but nominated a new one for deletion. I have mentioned below all the Du files were and are in the public domain in Switzerland.12:38, 29 April 2022 (UTC) Paradise Chronicle (talk) 12:38, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

And there was no threat. This was a genuine question. Are you open for recall?Paradise Chronicle (talk) 12:47, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

And I also do not intend to start a procedure to desysop you but would join others who also think the process of deletion was questionable and not really admin like. I'd be much more helping than you have been if I only had the knowledge which guidelines keep the images on wikipedia, I'd tell the editor about it or add the text that keeps the images on wikipedia myself instead of nominating them for deletion.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 00:33, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

Yann seeing this discussion at your talk page I suggest you could at least take into consideration concerns from editors who don't agree with you.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 04:14, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

File tagging File:Du 1941 Titel.jpg

This media may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading File:Du 1941 Titel.jpg. This media is missing permission information. A source is given, but there is no proof that the author or copyright holder agreed to license the file under the given license. Please provide a link to an appropriate webpage with license information, or ask the author or copyright holder to send an email with copy of a written permission to VRT (permissions-commons@wikimedia.org). You may still be required to go through this procedure even if you are the author yourself; please see Commons:But it's my own work! for more details. After you emailed permission, you may replace the {{No permission since}} tag with {{subst:PP}} on file description page. Alternatively, you may click on "Challenge speedy deletion" below the tag if you wish to provide an argument why evidence of permission is not necessary in this case. Please see this page for more information on how to confirm permission, or if you would like to understand why we ask for permission when uploading work that is not your own, or work which has been previously published (regardless of whether it is your own). Warning: unless the permission information is given, the file may be deleted after seven days. Thank you.

 

Yann (talk) 08:00, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

You can't use PD-old-70 if you don't know the author. Who is the artist? Yann (talk) 08:00, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

It is a painting of Maria Magdalena Schulthess by Susette Hirzel https://www.jstor.org/stable/43835262 p.321. Accessible over JSTOR at the Wikipedia library. And I didn't use PD old 70 it was uploaded in 2015, when I was not yet on wikipedia. And isn't it allowed to upload anything published in the media if it is in the public domain in the country of origin? In Switzerland it would be anything older than 70 years which are all the three files of Du nominated for deletion. I found a {{PD-Switzerland-official}} at Zytglogge but it is not on chapter 5 but chapter 6 article 29 where the thing with the 70 years is mentioned.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 11:56, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

I must admit, I seem to have mistaken the number of the article.

Art 29 says:

50 years after production for photographic depictions and depictions of three-dimensional objects produced by a process similar to that of photography if the depictions do not have individual character; then also where it is has to be assumed that the author has been dead for more than 50 or 70 years respectively, protection no longer applies.

Now one can argue what an individual character is, but

then I also found article 39, which I assume is the article I looked for. This is an excerpt from the article.

Protection begins ... with the publication of the phonogram or audio-visual fixation, ... it ends after 70 years.

I interpret this that the copyright of a published Du magazine expires after 70 years. Would be be good to find out if this is true.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 23:45, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

OK, I fixed the description with the asrtist's name, the correct license, a category for the author, and another one for the subject. Since the painting is much older than the magazine, we don't have to worry, as the painting copyright expired long before it was published. If you could find the information about the depicted person, it would be good. The other covers could be undeleted if you find the information about the artists. Regards, Yann (talk) 12:40, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

File copyright status

Welcome to Wikimedia Commons. While everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the project, one or more of your file uploads had missing or false information regarding its source and copyright status. Please note that Wikimedia Commons takes copyright rules and infringement very seriously. Files may only be uploaded and included if their copyright status meets the conditions stated in our licensing policy, and if their provenance is clearly documented. Files that fail to meet those conditions may be deleted, and users who fail to meet them may be blocked. Please follow our first steps, if you haven't already. If you have questions, feel free to ask at the Village Pump copyright question page or on my talk page. Thank you. --Yann (talk) 08:13, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

Yeah thanks, I opened a discussion on how to include an image on fair use for the article Dalai Lamas escape from China here but no answer came. Another time I added a request at the Meta community wishlist to add a modality to keep contested images of commons on Wikipedia, I hope it will get reactivated. So I try to be constructive and am glad for any help I receive.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 12:24, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

File:Self-Portrait - Marc Chagall.jpg

File:Self-Portrait - Marc Chagall.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.

 

--Masur (talk) 15:02, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

Hi, I notice that that some of the images I uploaded might not be in the public domain as at the beginning of my uploading I didn't know that an image needs to be old enough and of some works already present I just added a similar or an in my opinion better one. The bust of Christoph Merian might not be in the Public domain but as there was one only in Black and White I though I add one in color. I looked for the artist, but also after searching for it, I didn't find it.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 16:45, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

An other is also the File:Effigie rocher fruiteux–Jean Dubuffet.jpg. This one actually probably for sure as its the only artwork besides of File:Museo Nacional Centro de Arte Reina Sofia, Madrid, Spain (24385892345).jpg, which was not uploaded by me. Paradise Chronicle (talk) 16:52, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

Claims of ownership for art media you've uploaded

Hi, PC! Thank you for uploading almost 240 images to Commons; this is a great service you're doing. I suppose it's your photographic work that you've obtained by visiting various museums, churches etc. Unfortunately, the vast majority of your 240 uploads are still labeled as your "own work"; you've claimed copyright ownership of the works themselves (not merely the photographs you took) and you've even attempted to relicense them under Creative Commons terms! I hope that you will understand why this is prohibited on Wikimedia sites, nor anywhere else in the world today. I believe that the paintings do not belong to you, and if not, then their legal use and re-use is not at your discretion. I'll return to Commons in, say, 10 business days or so, to give you a chance to review all of your contributions and attribute them to any rightful owners. If you haven't rectified this completely by May 23, our next stop will be Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems, where your behavior (including threats and retorts to other users and admins, such as the ones you wrote above this post) and all of your contributions would be scrutinized, and we'll determine whether or not these works are owned and licensed by you, as you have repeatedly claimed here on Commons. Thanks, PC, and I look forward to your kind response. Elizium23 (talk) 23:02, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

Well, what I have done I have done in good faith. I have uploaded works I have seen in other articles as well. For the copyright problems I'll try to address them in copying the same copyright I find in other artwork by the same artists I have uploaded some works on commons. Regarding the threats I'd be ready to go to the Noticeboards, because as to me I have not threatened anyone on commons, I simply asked a question and having seen another editor also had some issues with the deleting admin of my uploaded files, (who then restored the other editors file after some insistence to restore the file) I suggested they could at least take into consideration concerns from editors who don't agree with them. Following your mention of the Admin noticeboard, I revisited my edits and noticed one editor who raised concerns (I think you should have taken some more time to look at sourcing and not put out so wide a net of mass deletion.) was actually also an admin.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 04:01, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

Hi PC, sorry about the previous rant (I reverted it) I didn't read your contributions properly.

Yes, it looks better now that you're adding licenses. I'm not sure how you've ensured that the licenses are valid, but it's an improvement, for sure.

Unfortunately the files still include |source={{own}} so you'll need to replace that template in another round of edits, to finish the job completely. Thanks, PC, and I appreciate that you've followed up promptly. Elizium23 (talk) 14:06, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

But as they are in the public domain, my photograph also counts as a work. It was not my goal to claim to be the author of the paintings, but of the photograph, I am the author. And I'm curious to see if you also ask the ones who inspired me to upload the way I am doing it, or if I am singled out. Currently many of my uploads count with a license, while the other autopatrolled ones not. The Auto-patrolled one was even encouraged to upload more images.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 17:54, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

As you might see, I am not really comfortable in experiencing again and again and now it is the third wiki that I get under scrutiny and others can do similar or worse things and come through with it. An other editor one can literally exclaim you made a mistake and restore my file to the deleting Admin and the file gets restored while my file is also in the public domain, only gets restored after pointing to the linked discussion and afterwards I become scrutinized for allegedly having threatened someone. I am just trying to contribute to Wikipedia (Commons) and would like to be treated in a constructive manner.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 20:00, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

Hi Paradise Chronicle. I have no problems=Artikel 27. My photos are controlled by Schweizer Admin. EinDao (talk) 07:11, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

What do you mean, your files don't need a license but I do? Look at that rant I received, where it says Consider the real-world consequences and your liability from such broad claims; I don't believe that you can afford the trouble it would bring you personally. Paradise Chronicle (talk) 07:37, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

i have no idea EinDao (talk) 14:47, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

My clue is that you have the license in theory, but not in practice. And since you have the support by a Swiss admin, and are editing in a uncontroversial area, you are fine for the moment.

I believe that the correct thing would be to add the Art 27 to each of the files from public places in Switzerland in addition to the personal one already present.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 16:43, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

the rant has phrases such as You have no legal right to confer a license on any work that you have not independently created, and that right is not granted simply by your act of photographing someone else's creative work.‘! Reading it yourself might help. Paradise Chronicle (talk) 16:45, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

Hey PC, please take note that I immediately reverted that post, and I have retracted it as unwarranted, so I am not comfortable with you continuing to quote it, as if it is something that has any relevance to this situation. However, I do stand by my assertion that these original artworks are not yours to own nor license, no matter their original status in the Public Domain. Elizium23 (talk) 04:15, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

Is then EinDao also not the owner or am I singled out for some reason, for which I'd really like to know? And even though you have immediately reverted that post it still shows how you were meant to treat a let's say not so experienced editor to commons. Don't bite the Newcomers. Wouldn't it be more welcoming to just add the same license already present in the other file existent, or the correct one if the one present at the other file was also wrong. The Du files had an another Du file already present (not uploaded by me) and would have merited a Public Domain license. It even appeared on DYK. I for now do it similar like the other editors, while at the same time trying to get better, which is what I am trying to do since the start.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 09:05, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

This is just for the reader who might visit my talk page at some point.https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Reuse_of_PD-Art_photographs#Switzerland may also give you some explanation. As I understand it, my uploads from Museums in Switzerland are alright. Paradise Chronicle (talk) 17:36, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

A Public Domain license is certainly the freest license for a work. So how do you justify restricting that license and placing your own requirements on its reproduction? Nobody has to credit you when they copy this work of art - it's public domain already! Nobody has to relicense it under Creative Commons because you photographed it - it's public domain already!

I consider your license and authorship claims to be deceptive at best - you aren't crediting the original authors and artists. Make it clear where you have contributed original work. It's perfectly alright for you to mention and note that you took the photograph, but if you say "this is my own work" full-stop, doesn't it seem that this implies that you used palette, brushes, paints and canvas and painted the work from scratch? Elizium23 (talk) 04:11, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

I believe this is a commons issue and not an editors issue. I have checked several other files and in well described files there is usually a field for the Artist of the work which I guess is what I mean by adding the description "Painting ... by..." or ... by ... which I have added I believe in the vast majority of my uploads. And own work simply means that I am the author and source of the two-dimensional reproduction (photographer) and therefore have the right to release into the public domain.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 07:13, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

Copyright status: File:Mühlestein Gspon.jpg

Copyright status: File:Mühlestein Gspon.jpg

This media may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading File:Mühlestein Gspon.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.

And also:

• File:Obelisk Independenzia Bellinzona.jpg

This action was performed automatically by AntiCompositeBot (talk) (FAQ) 08:06, 11 May 2022 (UTC)