User talk:PascalHD

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

-- Wikimedia Commons Welcome (talk) 20:16, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

FM promotion[edit]

This file has been promoted to Featured media!

The file File:Canadian Army Newsreel, No. 01 (1942).webm, that you uploaded is now assessed as one of the finest file on Wikimedia Commons, the nomination is available at Commons:Featured media candidates/File:Canadian Army Newsreel, No. 01 (1942).webm. Thank you for your contribution. If you would like to nominate, please do so at this nomination page.

Hi[edit]

@PascalHD Hi this photo of Janet [1] was taken in 1986. [2] Could you correct the year to that --Jade505 (talk) 22:53, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

PascalHD Hi Pascal, I think Janet Jackson 1986 (A&M Publicity photo) is a bit confusing as the Publicity photo is from 1987. How about Janet Jackson 1986 (A&M Publicity photo 1987) --Jade505 (talk) 02:11, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello and thanks for the info. You've shown me evidence that the photograph was taken at the earliest of 1986. The date stamped on the back of what I have uploaded just shows the first date that specific printed copy was used in print. As publicity photos were mass distributed/published, it would be appropriate to use the 1986 date. PascalHD (talk) 02:13, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ok no problem. Jade505 (talk) 02:15, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for providing an accurate date PascalHD (talk) 02:16, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Prototyperspective (talk) 12:44, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:PEI Sample License Plate 2013.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.

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!

Abzeronow (talk) 19:58, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:PEI License Plate RZ 069.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.

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!

Abzeronow (talk) 03:35, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Help with this Christopher Mayer picture[edit]

So I just found this This picture of actor Christopher Mayer, which is licensed under "Fair Use", but upon looking at both the archives it's absent with Copyright Markings or has been registred. I'm pretty sure the uploader didn't knew about the 79-89 PD-US tag or wasn't enforced during that time (the pic was uploaded in 2012). So, what's the next steps to relicense this pic as Public Domain and move this picture to commons? Hyperba21 (talk) 20:49, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely, I would transfer this. However, I found a copy at Worthpoint of the photo which includes a notice: [3][4]. It appears that the copy the image was sourced from chopped off the notice. The 1980s publicity photos are a mixed bag, just needs a bit more searching unlike pre-1978 where it is guaranteed with no notice. PascalHD (talk) 21:06, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So what the uploader did was correct but by accident since they didn't really specify if the pic was or wasn't copyrighted. Well I actually have a plan B, which was uploading this this photo (back) of Mayer on a short lived 80's show "Glitter", (Already checked on the Catalog it's not there). Actually, now I found a non watermarked version on Worthpoint, I'll have that site too as a reference for Press Photos. Thanks. Hyperba21 (talk) 21:20, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah pretty much. Anyway that other photo looks fine to me. It appears to be a full rear label, nothings been cut out. ABC was still doing non-copyrighted prints till the mid 80s. You can attach the {{PD-US-defective notice-1978-89}} as the 'All Rights Reserved' on its own is not a suitable notice. Worthpoint is great for finding and referencing press photos. It often stores old sale listings. eBay is still better, as you get listing info and HQ photo scans. PascalHD (talk) 21:25, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Saw that you changed the license.

On the images's page at the City of Toronto Archives, it says under copyright conditions:

G-CC Government Records - City owns copyright
Copyright is held by the City of Toronto. You do not need permission to use the work for any purpose.

That implies Template:Copyrighted free use not Template:Attribution only license, right?

I have emailed the City of Toronto Archives to confirm Vasusrir429 (talk) 01:26, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Vasusrir429 When I first reached out to them, that is what they told me. They mentioned that the Attribution license was most accurate when I showed them. The City of Toronto Archives are the Copyright holders, for the G-CG records or Transferred works, not the creator/photographers. When we use the Copyright free use template, it credits the creator, not the Archives. An example would be, if a photo was taken by John Smith and he donated his photo to the Archives, we need to credit the Toronto Archives, not John Smith. When we used the Attribution license, it correctly credits the Archives and its fonds. Hope this makes sense. PascalHD (talk) 01:43, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting ...
I don't think that Template:Attribution only license is a substantially more restrictive license then Template:Copyrighted free use, so it's not a big deal. I agree that attributing to the archives makes it easier to find the original, but I'm not sure if attribution is legally required.
I'll see what they have to say.
Thanks for your help. Vasusrir429 (talk) 03:19, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Talking to them, I'm still not sure that attribution is legally required, but they do seem to prefer it so I think using Template:Attribution only license is best.
Best of regards — Vasusrir429 (talk) 17:54, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the reply and clarifying. PascalHD (talk) 18:53, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
File:Ontario Street Public School 2018 (01).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.

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!

A1Cafel (talk) 04:20, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Notification about possible deletion[edit]

Some contents have been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether they should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at their entry.

If you created these pages, please note that the fact that they have 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 them, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues.

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!

Affected:

And also:

Yours sincerely, PascalHD (talk) 01:10, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]