User talk:Verbcatcher/Archive 2017

Deletion requests/Files of User:Paulharding150

Deleting pictures. Hi, Please do not delete the photos I have uploaded, they all add value to the pages. All the photos are free of copyright / allowable.

Deletion requests/Files of User:Pino Presti

Buongiorno, posso comunicare in italiano? Grazie! --Pino Presti (talk) 18:40, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

Molte foto sono state scattate dalla mia compagna Karin Hemp https://www.discogs.com/artist/4296017-Karin-Hemp e altre da me personalmente. --Pino Presti (talk) 18:45, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

Posso fornire l'elenco dettagliato. --Pino Presti (talk) 00:19, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

Pino Presti, buongioro, parlo un poco d'Italiano, ma non sufficie por communication facile. È giusto scrivere in italiano, ma scrivo in Inglese.

If Karen Hemp took some of the photographs then she should be listed as the Author (Autore). Commons may need evidence that she has released these images with the stated licence. This can be done by her sending an email in an acceptable format to the ORTS system (see Commons:OTRS or Commons:OTRS/it).

I see that you have posted a response at Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by User:Pino Presti. That is the best place to discuss this, and I will comment further there. It is OK to write in Italian, but you may get a more rapid response if you write in English. Regards, Verbcatcher (talk) 23:37, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

Karin Hemp died on July 28, 1998. --Pino Presti (talk) 12:10, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

You know... I know the 1978 rule, I was just trying to communicate that there is some possibility, introducing the less expert user step by step to them. Because I believe in a more flexible approach, but apparently, this "DMV-style" reply is kinda preferred. So I also put my DMV-employer face now and I remind the reader that the wiki approach is about rules AND interaction with users, not just the first ones. If you know the rules very well, next time share with the user before the deletion procedures. If you can go file by file, next time go file by file before the deletion procedure, if you know the rules very well, next time add them also to the the very first edit of the deleltion request. You might think it is too much but remember that of you have time to remind that "ownership of the camera used is not relevant", you probably have the time to do all of that.

In the end doing the other way, informing before deletion, would have probably make everybody save time. We are wiki users and unless serious external issues (that I don't see) we are to help people since our first step. Commons does not win if you delete all images "with a doubt", it wins if you keep all the images that can be kept. So you have to try to act in that direction since the beginning, even without a stimulus that remind you so. I know that it is not a pleasure to be reminded, but it is useful. Like the camera ownership thing, I guess.--Alexmar983 (talk) 02:39, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

Also the "the best place to discuss" is never the deletion procedure. For Italian pictures it is the Italian village pump where we can reply in both languages, move them to itwiki before the deletion, rely on the support of it-N bilingual sysop, check OTRS procedures. You open the discussion there and at the end you take what's left for the deletion. That's more or less true for all the pictures with a useful content on which you can have some doubts.

If you like to start directly with the deletion, don't worry, there are plenty of unknown unused and low quality pictures stored here from 200x for which you can go directly to the Deletion process, of course, but these are clearly not one of them. Again, nothing personal, but I really hope that next time you do something like that you might hear a little voice on your shoulder that tell you not to take this shortcut. 75% of the time people ignore that, I so much hop you are in the other 25%... we need common sense or we'll never manage to process millions of files here.--Alexmar983 (talk) 02:45, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

Alexmar983, the best place to discuss images that have been proposed for deletion is on the deletion request page, comments on other pages are likely to be overlooked. My user page is the place to discuss my actions and other issues that relate to me personally.

If I had thought that the copyright issues concerning these photographs needed clarification then I would have raised them at Commons:Village pump/Copyright. Discussions there can be in any language, as I have done with other images.

I came across these photographs through w:en:Shirley Bassey, where File:Shirley Bassey2.jpg looks like a copyright violation. I then looked at the other files uploaded by the same user and formed the opinion that the Author specified for every file was either clearly wrong or dubious.

Pino Presti is not a new user. He was made 400 edits to four Wikimedia projects since 2009.[1] It appears that he used the OTRS system in 2011 for File:1st Round - Cover photo.jpg. Verbcatcher (talk) 13:47, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

Verbcatcher, as you can see here: https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:1st_Round_-_Cover_photo.jpg&action=history was another user to use the OTRS system (I would not know how to do it). --Pino Presti (talk) 14:42, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

I have to gear a lot of wikievents for September now and I cannot spend another 15 minutes to explain why this attitude is wrong. You got everything your way, have fun. Do good. Bye.--Alexmar983 (talk) 14:07, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

Deletion requests

More images to be deleted (potential nomination); you have selected few, randomly. I believe that you have missed many other images of the articles: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ja%27afar_of_Negeri_Sembilan https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tunku_Ampuan_Najihah And much more images actually according to your criteria. It is not a "guess" that this or that photographer is still living or not, or this or that date might suggest something, or this or that "sign" is a graphic work and the net result is copyright violation. I will not discuss this; I have the full information. This is a concrete way of interpretation, pardon me. Who says that the uploader does not have a "permission". Any way, please take sometime and skim the above images to delete and more time to browse my uploaded images to delete the ones you "think" violate any copyright. Thank you and all the very best! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Neuroforever (talk • contribs) 10:54, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

@Neuroforever: I did not select these images I nominated randomly, although I stopped nominating them before I had assessed all of your uploads. I have made a note to revisit the images in Category:Tuanku Ja'afar Royal Gallery, most of which I suspect are not allowable here.

The copyright holder of photographs, and of photographs or scans of photographs, is assumed to be the original photographer, or their descendants if they have died. Sometimes the copyright has been transferred, perhaps a museum, but evidence would have to be produced to establish this. In the UK copyright protection lasts for 70 years from the death of the photographer and in Malaysia for 50 years, see Commons:Copyright rules by territory. The US copyright rules also need to met.

If the original photographer is unknown then you cannot have obtained permission from them. You may have had permission to take photographs at the Tuanku Ja'afar Royal Gallery, but they are unlikely to have given you permission to release these pictures under a {{Cc-by-sa-4.0}} license, and they may not hold the copyright. Commons needs evidence that the copyright holder has assigned the stated licence.

In many cases we have to make a guess (or an assessment of probability) about whether a photographer is still living, or if they have been dead for 50 or 70 years. Where there is significant doubt we must apply the precautionary principle. When the photograph was taken is useful evidence for this assessment.

Your reference to graphic works presumably refers to File:The sign of the Petrie Museum of Egyptian Archaeology, within University College London, Malet Palace.jpg. Your photograph of the banner is a derivative work to which two copyrights may apply, both of which must be satisfied: your copyright as the photographer and the copyright on the banner. For some photographs of this type the UK Freedom of panorama rule allows us to ignore the copyright of the pictured object, but this rule does not apply to "2D graphic works", which this appears to be.

I am not questioning your good faith in uploading these images, but your claim to authorship of images that are simple reproductions of other people's photographs does not comply with the rules here, and you have not given evidence that your are authorised to assign a license to these photographs. Verbcatcher (talk) 19:58, 26 September 2017 (UTC)