User talk:TE(æ)A,ea.

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Welcome to Wikimedia Commons, TE(æ)A,ea.!

-- Wikimedia Commons Welcome (talk) 19:21, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

November 2018[edit]

Immediately stop edit warring or you could be blocked, Thank you. –Davey2010Talk 00:48, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Pay attention to copyright
File:Sign Indicating a Maximum Speed Limit.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 may soon be deleted. If you have written permission from the copyright holder, please replace the copyvio tag with {{subst:OP}} and have them send us a free license release via COM:VRT. If you disagree that the file is a copyright violation for any other reason, please replace the copyvio tag with a regular deletion request.

Warning: Wikimedia Commons takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

Afrikaans  asturianu  azərbaycanca  Bahasa Indonesia  Bahasa Melayu  català  čeština  dansk  Deutsch  Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎  English  español  euskara  français  galego  hrvatski  italiano  Lëtzebuergesch  magyar  Malti  Nederlands  norsk bokmål  norsk nynorsk  oʻzbekcha / ўзбекча  Plattdüütsch  polski  português  português do Brasil  română  sicilianu  slovenčina  slovenščina  suomi  svenska  Türkçe  Tiếng Việt  Zazaki  Ελληνικά  беларуская беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎  български  македонски  русский  српски / srpski  тоҷикӣ  українська  հայերեն  मराठी  বাংলা  മലയാളം  ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ  မြန်မာဘာသာ  ไทย  한국어  日本語  中文(简体)‎  中文(繁體)‎  עברית  العربية  فارسی  +/−

--Krdbot 08:01, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

IA upload review...[edit]

In terms of reviewing IA uploads:- Category:IA mirror related deletion requests


And thanks for your efforts to held determine some of them more robustly. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 09:24, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

IA Uploads ( Scans uploaded as PD-USGov)...[edit]

You might also want to do license review on these:-

https://petscan.wmflabs.org/?psid=18124934

Which is the query I was using to identify a small number of items that might not have the correct licences.

The number of wrongly licensed items is comparatively small, with many items on this list being correctly licenced as PD-US-Gov.

(As your efforts in looking at DR's has shown, a number are potential non-renewals or no-notice situations.)

If you are able to further reduce the number of results from this query, by updating licenses to something appropriate, or categorisation, so much the better. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 09:29, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

IA books...[edit]

If you've done searches and not found renewals (for US published works), can you update the licenses and close out the DR's? ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 21:37, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Any chance of working through these as well https://petscan.wmflabs.org/?psid=18636776? Most are correctly licensed on a cursory scan, but a few need updating to Non-renewals or no notice (with appropriate checks made, which you seem to be good at making.)ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 23:12, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Aside - I was adding Category:Books uploaded by Fæ/reviewed on books I was able to quickly confirm by obviously being US and pre 1923 can be dropped out the PETSCAN query. If there are more obvious categroeis that can be excluded en-masse then the query will be redone (with a newnumber)ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 23:12, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Look forward to your efforts in ongoing reviewing. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 23:12, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@TE(æ)A,ea.: Category:Internet Archive (notice check needed) Any chance you could run through these 14 entries , given your expertise in confirming non-notice situations on other volumes, works? ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 09:11, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

LoC Books--[edit]

Category:Books_in_the_Library_of_Congress/unchecked

Much appreciated that as you seem to be able to find un-renewed or non-notice works, if you could have a look through these, to filter down the number of items that do not need to be in a DR. Thanks.ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 18:09, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@TE(æ)A,ea.: Also if you do find a record, Much appreciated if you could use an appropriate Information field to note the relevant copyright office record numbers, as it helps the paper trail (Not sure if it's something recorded in structured data/ Wikidata yet). ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 07:11, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
To clarify, I meant if you find an unrenewed work, it would be nice to (additionally) have the record number of the original registration so others searching the CCE books subsequently can confirm the absence of a corresponding renewal record. Works that were not originally registered, (or had no notice) are of course not going to have an original registration record number. In addition works published entirely outside the US (and not also registered in the US) such as works in languges other than English, are unlikely to have registration records either. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 15:52, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
And running works by a third party was why 1927, 1928, 1929 and so on where in categories to start with... ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 16:05, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The unchecked category was in Commons Backlog already. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 16:06, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]


@TE(æ)A,ea.: And in response to what you said on my talk page, Is what you meant that you are checking CCE (and other sources) for renewals only, as opposed to no notice situations where the work is unlikely to have been registered in the first place?ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 16:13, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. You can also add - Category:Historical textbooks or works in the US National Library of Education/bad license to items for review, I see you;d already put in an Undeletion request for some of them from 1925-29, Excellent thinking:) ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 16:39, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you![edit]

The Copyright Watcher Barnstar
I am consistently trying to close backlogs of DRs (working on December now) and I regularly see your comments there, thoughtful and valuable. Thanks for you contributions, it really helps. rubin16 (talk) 12:49, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]


Welcome, Dear Filemover![edit]

العربيَّة  Deutsch  español  English  français  português  русский  українська  বাংলা  മലയാളം  한국어  日本語  Tiếng Việt  中文(中国大陆)‎  中文(台灣)‎  中文(简体)‎  中文(繁體)‎  +/−


Hi TE(æ)A,ea., you're now a filemover. When moving files please respect the following advice:

  • Use the CommonsDelinker link in the {{Rename}} template to order a bot to replace all ocurrences of the old title with the new one. Or, if there was no rename-request, please use the Move & Replace-tab.
  • Please leave a redirect behind unless you have a valid reason not to do so. Other projects, including those using InstantCommons, might be using the file even though they don't show up in the global usage. Deleting the redirects would break their file references. Please see this section of the file rename guideline for more information.
  • Please know and follow the file rename guidelines.
rubin16 (talk) 05:36, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Autopatroller[edit]

Hi, I gave you the Autopatroller right, so that your posts don't have to be reviewed. Regards, Yann (talk) 09:17, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

File:Bedtelyon v. State (2022).pdf 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!

Headlock0225 (talk) 15:45, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Fanart[edit]

Following your logic then everything in the fan art category should be removed.--Aurelio de Sandoval (Mensajes aquí please) 20:27, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

UDR[edit]

Hi, Files of your undeletion request have been temporarly restored. The license needs to be fixed, but there are 496 of them. How do you plan to do it? Regards, Yann (talk) 15:58, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Pay attention to copyright
File:Campbell v. Acuff-Rose Music.pdf 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 may soon be deleted. If you have written permission from the copyright holder, please replace the copyvio tag with {{subst:OP}} and have them send us a free license release via COM:VRT. If you disagree that the file is a copyright violation for any other reason, please replace the copyvio tag with a regular deletion request.


  • This file is a copyright violation for the following reason: Appendix A and Appendix B of this (otherwise PD-USGov) court opinion contain the verbatim lyrics of two popular songs, both in copyright and included in the public record under the normal exemptions for court proceedings but not public domain. Copyright is held by the estate managers for w:Roy Orbison and whoever manages the rights for w:2 Live Crew.
Warning: Wikimedia Commons takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

Afrikaans  asturianu  azərbaycanca  Bahasa Indonesia  Bahasa Melayu  català  čeština  dansk  Deutsch  Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎  English  español  euskara  français  galego  hrvatski  italiano  Lëtzebuergesch  magyar  Malti  Nederlands  norsk bokmål  norsk nynorsk  oʻzbekcha / ўзбекча  Plattdüütsch  polski  português  português do Brasil  română  sicilianu  slovenčina  slovenščina  suomi  svenska  Türkçe  Tiếng Việt  Zazaki  Ελληνικά  беларуская беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎  български  македонски  русский  српски / srpski  тоҷикӣ  українська  հայերեն  मराठी  বাংলা  മലയാളം  ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ  မြန်မာဘာသာ  ไทย  한국어  日本語  中文(简体)‎  中文(繁體)‎  עברית  العربية  فارسی  +/−

Xover (talk) 21:10, 11 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

File:Campbell v. Acuff-Rose Music.pdf 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!

Xover (talk) 09:32, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

File:I am not alone (Andersson paper).pdf 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!

2001:4C4C:1572:8F00:F46C:43F2:D41E:90FE 11:53, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

File:A Recent Entrance to Paradise.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!

2603:7080:B40:A5C3:B1F9:94E2:6F57:9302 21:50, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

File:Anthology of Japanese Literature.pdf 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!

Yann (talk) 21:14, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

File:Jack Daniel's Properties v. VIP Products page 5 image.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!

Günther Frager (talk) 23:51, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

File:Jack Daniel's Properties v. VIP Products page 6 image.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!

Günther Frager (talk) 23:52, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

File:Jack Daniel's Properties v. VIP Products page 15 image.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!

Günther Frager (talk) 23:53, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

File:Jack Daniel's Properties v. VIP Products page 7 image.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!

Günther Frager (talk) 23:54, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

File:Andy Warhol Foundation v. Goldsmith, opinion of Justice Kagan, page 6 image.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!

Yann (talk) 11:22, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

File:Andy Warhol Foundation v. Goldsmith, opinion of the Court, Figure 5-4.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!

Yann (talk) 11:25, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

File:Andy Warhol Foundation v. Goldsmith, opinion of the Court, Figure 5-1.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!

Yann (talk) 11:25, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Can you add a {{Book}} for this? Or is there a specfic infobox for court decisions? ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 21:59, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

BHL journals (and Flickr Commons)[edit]

Hi, you are welcome to submit undeletion requests if you have more information, or even better can get VTRS confirmation as to "free" licenses from the Journals/BHL. You previously also re-evaluated a lot of thesis that had been to DR.

You'll note I've tried to added a tracking category on the DR's. This is so that reviewers like yourself can find related items more quickly. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 08:02, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This may prove useful :) ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 14:52, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Any chance of doing some catalog consolidation?[edit]

Hi. Thanks for the efforts on evaluating my DR's.

Any chance you could try consolidating material kept into per 'document' categoeries alongside a PDF(or Djvu) of the source document along with a suitable wikidata entry. Please see my recent efforts for the category side of things on Commons. IA upload will generate a Book template normally and this should be used to populate a Wikidata entry ideally.

You might also want to check out ( and consider uploading scans) per work categories currently tagged with {{Bookwhere}}, which I'd been using where I'd found a 'per-work' category with images, but no PDF/DJVU of the document concerned.

You are also of course more than welcome to re-re-evaluate previous DR's if you have more information, or there's been a shift on what they are considered as ( Such as how Commons handles partial authorship by non-Federal authors, on certain works otherwise produced for Federal agencies for example.) ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 06:49, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

File:Mallory v. Norfolk Southern page 19 image.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!

Verbcatcher (talk) 00:03, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

File:Andy Warhol Foundation v. Goldsmith, opinion of Justice Kagan, page 33 image 2.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!

Verbcatcher (talk) 00:47, 8 October 2023 (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!

Affects:

Verbcatcher (talk) 06:14, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

For future uploads of US court cases where it is likely that the work is in the public domain AND you are looking to extract the images, like you do for enWS reproductions, please upload the extract images to enWS and mark with their local version of {{Do not move to Commons}}. It will save me a whole lot of resurrection work, Thanks.  — billinghurst sDrewth 13:07, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Accusation of retaliatory actions[edit]

Please explain what you mean by your comment "this and your other nominations are purely retaliatory"[1] in Commons:Deletion requests/Illustrations extracted from Andy Warhol Foundation v. Goldsmith. You appear to be accusing me of bad faith. I strive not to retaliate, and I do not see why you would think I was doing so. I disagree with your interpretation of some aspects of copyright law, but that would not lead me to retaliate.

I think our first interaction was a few days ago in Commons:Deletion requests/File:Your garden next spring (IA yourgardennextsp1966wyat).pdf. That exchange led me to think that your understanding of what should be classified as a U.S. work was incorrect. This led me to review your uploads, in case you had made the same mistake with some of them. This is quite normal on Commons, and it should not been seen as harassment or retaliation. I saw that you had uploaded several files which appeared to be under copyright. The license you applied to these files appeared to be invalid so I nominated them for deletion. It saves everyone's time to nominate multiple related files at the same time.

Verbcatcher (talk) 09:01, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright status: File:Sophocles' King Oedipus.pdf

bahasa melayu  català  čeština  dansk  deutsch (Sie-Form)  deutsch  english  español  français  galego  hrvatski  italiano  magyar  nederlands  norsk  norsk bokmål  norsk nynorsk  português  polski  português do Brasil  română  sicilianu  slovenčina  slovenščina  suomi  svenska  türkçe  беларуская  беларуская (тарашкевіца)  български  македонски  русский  українська  ಕನ್ನಡ  ತುಳು  മലയാളം  한국어  日本語  中文(简体)  中文(繁體)  עברית  العربيَّة  فارسی  +/−
Warning sign
This media may be deleted.
Thanks for uploading File:Sophocles' King Oedipus.pdf. 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.

This action was performed automatically by AntiCompositeBot (talk) (FAQ) 01:05, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright status: File:The 5G Ecosystem, cover image.jpg

bahasa melayu  català  čeština  dansk  deutsch (Sie-Form)  deutsch  english  español  français  galego  hrvatski  italiano  magyar  nederlands  norsk  norsk bokmål  norsk nynorsk  português  polski  português do Brasil  română  sicilianu  slovenčina  slovenščina  suomi  svenska  türkçe  беларуская  беларуская (тарашкевіца)  български  македонски  русский  українська  ಕನ್ನಡ  ತುಳು  മലയാളം  한국어  日本語  中文(简体)  中文(繁體)  עברית  العربيَّة  فارسی  +/−
Warning sign
This media may be deleted.
Thanks for uploading File:The 5G Ecosystem, cover image.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.

This action was performed automatically by AntiCompositeBot (talk) (FAQ) 23:05, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]