User talk:RedCoat/Archive 3

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! 1783, Royal George medallion.png, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments {{{3}}}

Image:JeremyPaxman-20051129.jpg

Hi, you recently tagged Image:JeremyPaxman-20051129.jpg and Image:JeremyPaxman-20051129-detail.jpg as violating copyright. Is that the case? The original photograph on Flickr was licensed as CC-BY-SA-2.0, and while that is not conclusive (the author may have incorrectly licensed the photograph), the photograph is of a scene from a television programme. Does that violate copyright in the video recording of the programme? — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 17:13, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Clancy_Wiggum.JPG

Hi, you recently deleted this image, I really don't understand why. Maybe I am wrong, but I thought that photographs of art (paintings, sculptures) displayed in public (in this case in the street) aren't protected from copyright. At least other graffiti and similar things are still here. Am I wrong? Thanks. --Adam Zivner 08:36, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Copyright immagini

Tutte le immagini qui e qui (stesso contributore) sono probabilmente copyviol. Su wiki-it è it:Utente:A7N8X e l'ho già avvisato (qui).

Esempio: Image:Cagiva 125 Freccia C9.jpg da [1], Image:Cagiva 125 Freccia C12SP.jpg da [2], Image:Cagiva C594 sx.jpg da [3], Image:Honda NR 500 1979.jpg da [4] (con sfondo cancellato) ecc.ecc.

Scusa se scrivo in italiano, se vuoi puoi però rispondermi sia in inglese che in francese :-)

Ciao --Pil56 15:53, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Di niente :-) Ho visto che avete cancellato tutte le immagini, ricordo che probabilmente anche queste sono tutte in copyviol (visto che è sempre lo stesso utente. Ciao :-) --Pil56 16:53, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Image:I-mobile 1.jpg y obras derivadas

Hola RedCoat,

he consultado a Dodo y no tengo claro que la imagen sea una obra derivada (a no ser que consideres la caja, algo que no creo posible). Generalmente la plantilla {{Derivative}} se usa para imágenes de logotipos, emblemas y similares. Por supuesto que puedes seguir el procedimiento estándar y usar la plantilla {{Delete}} o consultar en el Village Pump. Un saludo --Ecemaml (talk to me/habla conmigo) 16:57, 10 December 2007 (UTC) PD: por cierto, ¿puedes restaurar [5] hasta que se aclare el asunto?

Hola Ecemaml. No es la caja que es un trabajo derivado, sino el logotipo de "I-mobile". Te lo puedo restaurar si quieres, pero suspongo que ahora entiendes por qué lo borre. Véase también esta discusión que se trata de algo muy similar. Regards, RedCoat 18:03, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

En mi opinión, es obvio que es una obra derivada y, por tanto, una violación a los derechos del autor, ya que lo que ilustra la foto es el celular y sus componentes, incluyendo el logotipo de la compañía que lo creó. Deberían permanecer borradas. --Boricuæddie 19:36, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

No, por supuesto que no creo que sea obvio. Se trataría de obra derivada única y exclusivamente a causa del logotipo. El celular, al igual que cualquier otro "manufactured products" puede ser fotografiada. No sólo según la interpretación de Dodo (talk • contribs • Luxo's • SUL • deleted contribs • logs • block user • block log • checkuser) que, creo, lleva siendo bibliotecario algunos años, sino porque si no, cualquier foto de un coche, una cámara de fotos o un celular deberían ser borrados. Sinceramente no tengo una opinión formada acerca de cuánto de grande debe de ser un logotipo para hacer de una foto una obra derivada (tómese por ejemplo Image:Olympus_XA.jpg o Image:Olympus OM-2 SP.jpg (sí, se perfectamente que en este caso no hay copyright sobre el logotipo debido a que se trata únicamente de texto en una fuente y color concretos, el cual no puede estar sujeto a derecho de autor alguno, pero las pongo a modo de ejemplo; podéis ir a Category:Satellite dish (Television) y ver que muchas de las parabólicas exhiben el logotipo de su empresa; podéis ver Image:Raikkonen.jpg o Image:Lewis Hamilton 2007 USA.jpg y ver que todas exhiben logotipos). La cuestión es cuanto de prominente debe de ser el logotipo para que se considere obra derivada. Y no he visto todavía ningún criterio claro. Con vuestro permiso voy a poner un {{Delete}} para obtener opiniones. Un saludo --Ecemaml (talk to me/habla conmigo) 21:41, 10 December 2007 (UTC) PD: no hace falta restaurar el otro.

Commons:Deletion requests/Image:I-mobile 1.jpg --Ecemaml (talk to me/habla conmigo) 21:50, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Por cierto, la discusión sobre el iPhone que me indicaste creo que no aplica a este caso. El razonamiento es claro "The user interface is copyrighted" y ese no es el caso que nos ocupa aquí. --Ecemaml (talk to me/habla conmigo) 10:08, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Por eso dije "se trata de algo muy similar". RedCoat 12:14, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

No, yo creo que la interfaz de usuario de un iPhone no tiene nada que ver con un logotipo. De hecho, en ese caso se trata de una obra derivada equivalente a fotografiar un screenshot de un juego o programa. En el caso que nos ocupa, se trata de algo bastante diferente, que equivale a los ejemplos que he puesto en la página de discusión de borrado de la imagen (por ejemplo, Image:Raikkonen.jpg o Image:Lewis Hamilton 2007 USA.jpg). De hecho, como ya he indicado, creo que recortando el paquete y dejando sólo el teléfono móvil, la imagen no debería tener ningún problema. Un saludo --Ecemaml (talk to me/habla conmigo) 13:47, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

CEATEC

Could you link me to the reason why it was deleted? Thanks --Kushal one 22:29, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

The image is not a derivative work. It is the same as the original picture. Don't I have the rights to it under GFDL? --Kushal one 22:47, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Can I link to an image from the Japanese wikipedia on the English wikipedia? The description at the Japanese says it is under GFDL. Please let me know. Thanks. --Kushal one 15:56, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Is this image [6] subject to deletion as well? --Kushal one 15:59, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

FP Promotion

★ This image has been promoted to Featured picture! ★ The image Image:Gibraltar map-en.svg, that you nominated on Commons:Featured picture candidates/Image:Gibraltar map-en.svg has been promoted. Thank you for your contribution. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so.

--Simonizer 16:02, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks again ! Sting 11:59, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Image Deletion

Please delete this; Image:Barasoain Church.png. Thank you. --βritandβeyonce ^{(talk•contribs)} 01:04, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Thank you

Thanks for supporting me in my successful RfA! Rocket000 15:47, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Gibraltar Barbary Macaque.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments {{{3}}}

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Construction in Gibraltar.JPG, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments {{{3}}}

Safo

Please delete this Image:Safo by Mengin.jpg... a new version stay here

sorry, I don't speak english.

Thanks, André Koehne ^{TALK TO ME} 06:50, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Existe esta Image:1877 Charles Mengin - Sappho.jpg, numa resolución maior... Gracias. André Koehne ^{TALK TO ME} 10:53, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Personality Rights

I noticed you recently tagged one of my photos (Image:Dunk tank.jpg) with {{Personalityrights}}. This is the first I've heard of this concept, thank you for bringing this to my attention. Almost none of the images I've uploaded in the past have come from me, almost all from someone who acceptably licensed their photos on Flickr, as such I have no idea about any of the persons in these photos. It seems a shame to simply delete them all, so I was wondering if you could help me out.

Assuming I cannot verify the permission of those photographs, should they be deleted? Does it vary by country? Can I assume if the photographer him/herself is in the photo they have consented to its use? The Template states that "You are solely responsible for ensuring that you do not infringe someone else's personality rights" Since Wikimedia generally tries to make the work as free as possible, does that mean I should only use it if the person has consented to its use for any purpose? Or does the responsibility fall upon the reuser of the work to make sure that their specific use is appropriate for the individual? Does the appearance of an individual in a Wikipedia article risk implying that that individual supports the article? Is the situation different for photographs I've uploaded of public figures such as politicians?

Thank you for taking the time to inform me, I hope this will be a valuable learning expierence :) Ybbor^en.wiki 19:49, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

RE:Email

 Replied. Sorry I missed the first one ;-) --Boricuæddie 02:28, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your trust

Thank you for exhibiting trust in me in my recent request. I will do my best to continue to act in a way that will benefit the commons and the commons community. -- Avi 01:22, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Scrivo a te...

... perché so che capisci l'italiano :-).

A mio parere l'image:2006 Zastava 10.jpg, è in violazione copyright da qui, almeno guardando le date e i metadati. Cosa ne pensi? Grazie e buon anno :-) --Pil56 15:36, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Faccio anche un'aggiunta: sempre a mio parere naturalmente, anche le due immagini caricate da questo utente sono entrambe in violazione copyright perché sono evidentemente foto pubblicitarie della casa. Chiedo anche in questo caso il tuo parere, grazie :-) --Pil56 12:59, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Inappropriate behaviour

I would appreciate if you are not so trigger-happy with copyright infringement templates and actually bother to leave a couple of words explaining any concerns. I am an English wikipedia admin, so I was not born yesterday. The picture you deleted was originally uploaded to the Macedonian wikipedia and I had no reasons to doubt the uploader, hence the benefit of moving a copy to commons. Regards, --Asterion 17:59, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Replied RedCoat 18:54, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

A note of thanks

Hey, thanks for that. I just noticed it. I should probably start watching my pages. Rocket000 14:57, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

No worries. :) RedCoat 19:16, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

POTY Competition

Hi, I'm writing to let you know that an image of yours that become a Commons Featured Picture during 2007 is now part of the 2007 Picture of the Year competition. If you have > 200 edits you are welcome to vote too. Thanks for contributing your valuable work and good luck. Herby ^{talk thyme} 17:14, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Image Tagging Image:NATOMedals.jpg

Sorry, I can't remember where I found it and I can't find it again. I have see this image l1blarge.jpg at medals.nzdf.mil.nz that is a scaled down version of the one I have uploaded. But I don't know if the license legal.html is compatible with Commons licensing rules. --F l a n k e r 13:18, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I can't find the source... But it is not a big deal to lost this image: I think I can made an SVG of the medal. Thanks anyway for your help, F l a n k e r 17:41, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you...

...for your kind words! --Boricuæddie 21:20, 22 January 2008 (UTC)