User talk:Yann/archives 42

File:Ritratto di Annibale Cavriani.jpg

hi yann,

I would like to ask for the restoration of the following portrait made in 1779 by the priest Luigi Nicolini Source of Portrait:https://www.comune.mantova.gov.it/index.php/cultura/mantova-citta-di-cultura/news-cultura/item/download/378_ece275d4c53206725d5beb4d24fff34e  (sorry if I can not sign, but the phone is not 'at all suitable for wikipedia) — Preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.50.35.247 (talk) 23:57, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

Have a cookie

		Good job !
		Here is a cookie.
		from Dragnadh

sorry yang they are my photos delete them if y want sorry — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hardygaza (talk • contribs) 09:55, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

Wikicommons media upload that are in violation of copyright.

Hello!

I am new to editing/uploading wikipedia and wikimedia commons. I would love to contribute but I think my mistake here is not fully understanding first what are the things that are not supposed to be uploaded and what makes a media copyrighted. I will review the rules and copyright information to make sure I don't violate it again.

What I would like to ask is what would be the best step for the images I have previously uploaded. I was thinking of just deleting them but I can't seem to find where and how. Your guidance will be much appreciated. Thank you!

Regards, Frozen88 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Frozen88 (talk • contribs) 07:28, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

Redirection led to delinking

Hi Yann. Your deletion of file:PICT0148c.jpg led to only two redirection but delinkning in all other uses of the file by CommonsDelinker (deliker log). Is it possible to redo the actions of the bot to link to the picture which was is practice moved, although in two steps by two users? Thank you in advance. / Arvelius (talk) 21:06, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

Hi Arvelius,

I restored the redirect, but CommonsDelinker did replace all uses of the image except when the pages were protected. The articles should use the actual name, not the redirect. I can't edit the remaining pages, which are protected. Regards, Yann (talk) 21:11, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

Hi Yann. I totally agree that articles should be using the actual name, but in this case if I understand it correctly what happened was that the picture was moved by User:Asav and thereby got a new name and a redirect from the old. Many articles was linked to the original name which went broken when you removed the link. Am I right? Sorry if I misunderstood something here. Anyway commonsDelinker was run and removed most of the links (except the first two in the log linked above) and damage is done. If the cure had been to restore the link I would have done it myself. My question is if it's possible to revert all the delinking the bot did in those articles without editing them all by hand. Regards, Arvelius (talk) 21:31, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

You can just go here and rollback the changes. Regards, Yann (talk) 22:41, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, now I'm done. Sorry for the delay but the chinese page didn't really work the same way as the others and I understood nothing. Today with help from a native speaker I got it. Feel free to run the bot first and delete the redirect afterwards. /Arvelius (talk) 20:55, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

Approve my image please

Yann, would you be so kind to approve my image please? File:Karol_G_entrevista.jpg — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sando Alva (talk • contribs) 21:10, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

 Done by Leoboudv. Yann (talk) 13:16, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

Andrewavelin

Yann, Please approve this image because the appreciation certificate is real. SICA is called as southern india cinematographers association : [1].

SICA Congratulates Shri Raghunatha Reddy on winning Tamilnadu State Government Award - Best Cinematography for the Television Serial Santhi Nilayam (2011). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Andrewavelin (talk • contribs) 10:08, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

@Andrewavelin: Hi,

The copyright holder has to send a formal permission via COM:OTRS. Regards, Yann (talk) 13:15, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

User:Awesomedubey

Hi Yann, are you actually the source of this user's images? [2] Greetings, -- Ies (talk) 07:40, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

Hi Ies,

No, nothing to do with me. Thanks for your message. Regards, Yann (talk) 13:13, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

Your post on my user site: User talk:Algaeclown

Dear Yann,

thanks for your messages on my talk. I do not log on to my account very often, so I've read your notifications very late. But today, I sent the confirmation-mail to the Wikimedia commons mail-address and hope, that the pictures will be reloaded soon. Is this the wa how it normally goes? Anyhow, I answered directly to the notifications on my talk site.

Best regards

algaeclown — Preceding unsigned comment added by Algaeclown (talk • contribs) 11:28, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

@Algaeclown: Hi,

Yes, the files will be undeleted when the permission is validated by OTRS volunteers. There is always a backlog, so it may take some time. Regards, Yann (talk) 13:12, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

@Yann: Thanks for the quick answer! I look forward to get the news from the volunteers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Algaeclown (talk • contribs) 13:30, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

File:Australia from space (28277176257).jpg

Thank you for adding the header. Would you mind reviewing the licence, too? Please note also the licence text in the description at Flickr. De728631 (talk) 00:00, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

 Done Yann (talk) 10:04, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

Deleting company logos

Hi! You've deleted the company logo I uploaded. You said, that I can upload the logo locally to a Wikipedia if there is a corresponding article. There is an article, but I don't see a way to upload it in any way but through Wikimedia Commons. By the way, each company's logo can't be used for commercial purposes, but still, there's a bunch of logos on the profiles of different companies like GitHub, GitLab, Slack,(the links don't work) and others. --Meli.roden (talk) 14:41, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

Hi

I dont understand the deletion of the pictures uploaded on my page, the pictures were taken from my device( camera) and have been edited(if any) on my personal device. The pictures are solely my property.

Please educate me why they were deleted.

Abhinav — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ashukla09 (talk • contribs) 04:31, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

@Ashukla09: Hi,

I undeleted one file, but there are copies of File:Abhinav Shukla.jpg and File:Abhinav Shukla's Portrait.jpg on the Internet, and they are quite small. Could you please upload the original images? Thanks, Yann (talk) 11:40, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

Vandal DR's

Resolved

Please see Commons:Deletion requests/User:Donald Trung and Commons:Deletion requests/User:Q-bit array and close them as speedy keeps. --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 11:29, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

I've done them. Rodhullandemu (talk) 11:30, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

@Rodhullandemu: thanks, it's probably also best to add Category:Alexander Krassotkin to your watchlist, this seems to be a new target. Regards, --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 11:33, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

Narendra Modi Flickr stream

None of the images that I nominated in Commons:Deletion requests/Derivative works of deleted files from Narendra Modi Flickr stream are Government of India works. All of them are dated before May 2014, that is before Narendra Modi became the prime minister of India. The images are probably works of Modi's political party, Bharatiya Janata Party. I think the DR needs more discussion. —Gazoth (talk) 14:50, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

@Gazoth: Hi,

OK, thanks for the notice. I deleted them again (and a few others), and added a note. Regards, Yann (talk) 12:16, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

File:Alluwamna. Печать SBo I.86.jpg

Hi! What do you think? Is this file in public domain really? --Regasterios (talk) 18:47, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

Hi, If I understand correctly, it is from Russia in 1911? So yes, much probably. Regards, Yann (talk) 18:50, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

No-no-no. Original uploading to ruwiki was in 2011-11-09 (see original upload log). Please click on the source (I attached an hours ago). It is a draw which depicts the seal impression of a Hittite emperor's son-in-law (lived 3500 years ago). This draw is the copy of the seal impression. Is it also in public domain? --Regasterios (talk) 19:56, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

Note: АААЙошкар-Ола is not the real author, he was only the uploader. --Regasterios (talk) 20:01, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

Ah OK. Well, I don't think the reproduction of the seal created a copyright, so it is fine. But a date of first modern publication would be better. Please change the license to {{PD-old-100-1923}}. Regards, Yann (talk) 20:03, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

Okay, thank you. --Regasterios (talk) 20:27, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

Opinion

If you get a chance, I wouldn't mind getting your opinion on File:Voando num mar de areia.jpg. You're a lot more active with VI, QI, and FP than I am. But it struck me a a pretty darned good image. GMG^talk 20:32, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

@GreenMeansGo: Hi,

Nice picture! Sure, try at COM:QI. Regards, Yann (talk) 09:04, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

FYI, there is an issue with some thumbnails for this file: phab:T200313. Yann (talk) 09:14, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

Hello

Hello Yann, about File:616大遊行 1.jpg and ‎File:616大遊行 2.jpg ‎that were recently deleted, I believe that the declaration email was already sent to OTRS by the author. Could you make a double check please? --No1lovesu (talk) 20:42, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

Hello I have posted the question here and user:Ankry have explained the situation to me, thanks. By the way, is this possible to remove the warning after receiving confirmation from the author? —No1lovesu (talk) 08:57, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

Copyright and Permission

Hello Yann,

In reply to your messages regarding the upload of various images, I want to let you know that:

1) Regarding: File:Advocate_Ramdas_Paranjpe,_Oil_Painting_by_Mumbiram,_Pune,_1990_s.jpg Artist Mumbiram, who created this painting, has sent his permission [Ticket#: 2018072410007741].

2) Regarding: File:Photo_of_Ramdas_Paranjpe_and_Wrangler_Paranjpe,_at_an_event_of_felicitation_at_Pune_Municipal_Corporation,_1963.jpg

Artist Mumbiram, who took the photo of his father (Ramdas Paranjpe) together with Wrangler Paranjpe , has sent his permission, [Ticket#: 2018072410007812].

3) Regarding: File:Newspaper_Article_about_inauguration_of_Paranjpe's_Portrait_by_Artist_Mumbiram_in_the_Library_of_the_District_Court_Pune_at_the_hands_of_retired_Chief_Justice_of_the_Supreme_Court_of_India,_1992.jpg I will try to obtain the permission from the publisher of the article. Please allow some time.

Thank you. --Kusum Bhagavat (talk) 05:25, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

@Kusum Bhagavat: Hi,

If there is a ticket, please add {{OTRS pending}} to the file descriptions. Regards, Yann (talk) 08:59, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

adding {{OTRS pending}} to the file descriptions

Thank you for your help and advise. I will add {{OTRS pending}} to the file descriptions (in cases where ticket has been obtained) and remove the {{No permission since|month=July|day=24|year=2018}} Is that correct ? --Kusum Bhagavat (talk) 10:11, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

@Kusum Bhagavat: Yes. Yann (talk) 20:20, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

Slugger Museum Pictures

Hi there,

I work with Louisville Slugger Museum & Factory and have been tasked with going through some of our photos' deletion requests. I was wondering if you could provide any sort of explanation as to way the following image was deleted: File:2007-116-2007-04-26T222923Z 01 LOU07D RTRIDSP 0 USA.jpg. I don't even know what the image was to begin with, so any info you have would be a big help.

The only thing I can think of is it says that the file is a copyright violation for the following reason, and then it links to a sports blog (http://spogear.blog.fc2.com/blog-entry-2.html). After going through the blog, the only thing I can come up with is that it might've been the image you see near the bottom of the page, of the pink bats hanging to dry. If this is the image in question, the blog owner should not even have that image to post in the first place as photography is not allowed in our factory.

Again, any help you might be able to give me as to what steps I need to take to restore the image and ensure this doesn't happen again would be greatly appreciated.

Thanks, --Fuchs nick (talk) 18:13, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

Hi Fuchs nick,

It is a copy of [3]. This is a very small image copied from the Internet, so we need a proof that it is under a free license. I suggest that you reupload the original image with full EXIF data. Also such a small file is not useful for us. We would like to have at least 2 Megapixels images. Also please use meaningful names. Regards, Yann (talk) 20:26, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Sotré.jpg

Hi Yann. Please explain your speedy closure of this DR. As you are certainly aware, non-obvious DRs must stay open for 7 days, and given URAA deletions are controversial—and that your opinion is clearly not universally held—this is clearly not an obvious keep. Storkk (talk) 08:59, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

OK, I reverted my closure. Yann (talk) 09:02, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

Завантаження світлин

Доброго дня, дякую за попередження.

Як завантажувати світлини, термін захисту яких минув? Або загальнодоступні фото. Наприклад, розклад рейсів з аеропорта Черкаси (не є об'єктом авторського права згідно закону України) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Losth. (talk • contribs) 09:32, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

@Losth.: Hi,

I am sorry, I don't speak Ukrainian. But from Google Translate, I think you are talking about File:Cherkasy-port-schedule.jpg. Right?

You mention that the author is Boris Yukhno. Usually copyright expires 70 years after the death of the author, so why do you think it is in the public domain in Ukraine?

Then, for any content still under a copyright, and which was previously published elsewhere, the copyright holder ha to send a written permission via COM:OTRS. Regards, Yann (talk) 09:55, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

The author does not mind using the file in educational purposes

You can send a message to his website https://www.alridwany.com/ to check that he permits using it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by أحمد الصاوى (talk • contribs) 13:50, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

@أحمد الصاوى: Hi,

Sorry, but this is not sufficient for Wikimedia Commons. Any document must be free for any purpose, including commercial ones. Regards, Yann (talk) 14:05, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

Opinion sought

I've been back. Do you think any of these would be acceptable as Valued Images, and which you would prefer? Thanks. Rodhullandemu (talk) 08:29, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

• 
• 
• 
• 

@Rodhullandemu: Hi,

Welcome back! ;) The first 2 are the best, but it is a pity that, in none of them, the church is fully visible. That's an issue for VI. Regards, Yann (talk) 08:53, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

You won't get full visibility of the church without a drone or a flame-thrower. Rodhullandemu (talk) 09:07, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

Help me out

Yeah we can both agree that I’m horrible to stirike down pages I just need the page because I forget and don’t know things very well. Can you give me the page please. I just don’t want to get this notification again. ARMcgrath (talk) 09:12, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

You recently deleted animal taxa by sex categories

You recently deleted many categories dedicated to sorting animal-related media by the sex of the depicted animal. You cited the speedy deletion criteria, but I don't see how they apply. Abyssal (talk) 17:38, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

Well, they were empty, and tagged as delete. They can be recreated, or undeleted if useful. Regards, Yann (talk) 18:07, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

Oh, OK. I thought you were acting unilaterally. Sorry. Abyssal (talk) 17:27, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

updated appeal to DR open by anonymous vandal

Please see here: Commons:Deletion requests/Files found with incategory:"Copyright violations" insource:"Kirill Kay"

Kirill Kay (talk) 09:40, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

Hi Kirill Kay,

Commons policy is that any file previously published elsewhere must have a proof that the license is valid. It can either be a mention at the source, or a mail via COM:OTRS. Or you can upload the original unmodified versions on Commons. Regards, Yann (talk) 09:48, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

Re-uploaded, File:Robert del Naja performing with Massive Attack in Sydney, 2010.jpg Cheers Kirill Kay (talk) 10:37, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

Kirill Kay, this is not the original image, but a scale-down version. It is just a copy of the one published on that website with the EXIF removed, which doesn't prove anything. Regards, Yann (talk) 10:55, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

OK, if the whole album on my private G+ account does not prove anything to you, then go ahead and remove the photo. Fetching original raws from cold storage and re-rendering them just for sake of proving my ownership to some anonymous kid will take way more of my time than I'm able to contribute atm.

It's just sad to see Wiki's policy are blindly followed for the sake of compliance rather than common sense.

Cheers.

Kirill Kay (talk) 11:19, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

Deleted Files from PIB

Hi,@Yann: please restore these files.Commons:Deletion_requests/Files_uploaded_by_Balajijagadesh Perumalism (talk) 18:21, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

File:(2) Катюша.ogv

File:(2) Катюша.ogv 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!

—SpanishSnake (talk | contribs) 02:53, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

Adding images from English wikipedia to commons

Can we add image files like this directly from Wikipedia to Commons licensed under the Government Open Data License - India (GODL).-Jinoytommanjaly (talk) 10:22, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

Structured Data feedback - Depicts statements draft requirements

Greetings,

A slide presentation of the draft requirements for depicts statements on file pages is up on Commons. Please visit this page on Commons to review the slides and discuss the draft. Thank you, see you on the talk page. -- Keegan (WMF) (talk) 21:20, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

Give your feedback about changes to Special:Block

Hello,

You are receiving this message because you are a top user of Special:Block on this wiki. Thank you for the important work that you do. There is a discussion happening about plans to improve Special:Block with the ability to set new types of blocks. To get the best design and new functions added, it is essential that people who use the tool join the discussion and share their opinions about these changes.

Instead of a full site wide block, you would be able to set a Partial Block. A user could be blocked from a single page, multiple pages, one or more namespaces, from uploading files, etc. There are several different ways to add this feature to Special:Block. Right now Important decisions are being made about the design and function.

Please review the page on Meta and share your feedback on the discussion page. Or you can reach me by email Also, share this message with anyone else who might be interested in participating in the discussion.

I appreciate any time that you can give to assist with making improvements to this feature. Cheers, SPoore (WMF) (talk) , Trust and Safety Specialist, Community health initiative (talk) 02:00, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

• Apologizes for posting in English.

So-called copyright issues

Dear Yann, I am trying to follow the guidelines about permissions for uploading images to wikimedia commons.

There were issues about uploaded files being derivative works.These were resolved by having permission letters from the author of the original paintings, Artist Mumbiram himself.

The latest objection is about 3 files: File:Advocate Ramdas Paranjpe, Oil Painting by Mumbiram, Pune, 1990 s.jpg In this case Artist Mumbiram is the author of the original painting and author of the uploaded photo image as well. Artist Mumbiram has sent the permission letter to OTRS.

File:Photo of Ramdas Paranjpe and Wrangler Paranjpe, at an event of felicitation at Pune Municipal Corporation, 1963.jpg In this case also, Artist Mumbiram is the author of the original photograph and author of the uploaded photo image as well. Artist Mumbiram has sent the permission letter to OTRS.

File:Article in Daily Sakal about Justice Chandrachud unvailing the portrait of Ramdas Paranjpe by Artist Mumbiram, 28 June, 1992.jpg This is an image of a newspaper article. I have now clarified in the description of the uploaded file that the editor of the newspaper is the author of the article as well as the image of the article. The editor himself has sent the permission letter to OTRS, therefore the issue is resolved.

As you can see , I have diligently heeded advice I have received from volunteers like you and administrators like Postdlf and resolved these issues. Therefore you should remove the warning templates you have put up against me. Thank you.--Kusum Bhagavat (talk) 14:00, 12 August 2018 (UTC) I am posting this message also on my talk page.

Catpain Barbell

Hi Yann. You previously blocked Catpain Barbell per COM:OVERWRITE, but it appears they are back at it again per COM:AN/U#User:Catpain Barbell. I'm not sure why this editor keeps doing this type of thing, but I can say with almost 100% certaintly that the 2000, 50000 and 100000 yen notes pictured here don't exit. There actually was a en:2000 yen note, but that's not what's pictured here. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:36, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

Just to update, Captain Barbell was blocked for three months by Ruthven. Perhaps being blocked for a second time will help convince them that overwriting files is not something considered OK to do. If not, it's likely they will find a third block to not be such a charm. -- Marchjuly (talk) 08:10, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Entrance sign at Datun Nature Park in Sanzhi.jpg

You closed this DR after having voted in it. While this may not be technically against the rules, it is certainly against the spirit of discussions and votes here, where a neutral third party is expected to close the discussion. Otherwise it would boil down to which disagreeing admin would delete or keep first, which is obviously absurd. Storkk (talk) 09:25, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

Also, please explain why you believe it is de minimis - you have made the bald assertion twice, but have provided no argumentation whatsoever that I can find. What statement among the following do you disagree with? Or do you disagree with COM:DM itself?

• The sign the subject
• The logo is a key part of the sign
• Removing the logo would make the derivative work radically different, but potentially still useful.

Thanks, Storkk (talk) 09:30, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

Hi, How does it matter that I gave my opinion there? Anyway, the DR was open since June 18th (!!!), and was stalled, as the last comment was 7 days ago. The logo is de minimis, as if it was blurred, it would not change much the usefulness of the image. Regards, Yann (talk) 09:32, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

So you would have been happy for me to delete on the same basis, given my different (and actually argued rather than asserted) opinion?! And by the way, you are describing case#6, which COM:DM describes as "very unlikely" to be de minimis. Storkk (talk) 09:43, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

I am not sure I agree with that, but since the image would be useful without the logo, it should not be deleted anyway. If the logo is a problem, it should be blurred. Deleting the file is throwing the baby with the bathwater. Bad idea and bad practice. Regards, Yann (talk) 11:34, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, could you clarify what you do not agree with? COM:DM; my characterization of the image (which bullet point above, if so?); the correspondence between those bullet points and COM:DM's case 6; your own characterization of the image; something else? Storkk (talk) 11:41, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

Le logo is not the main subject. So there are 2 good solutions: keeping the image as it is, or blurring it. And I can agree with any of them. Deleting is the bad solution. That's my point. Regards, Yann (talk) 11:54, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

I think you are misinterpreting COM:DM. The logo does not need to be the subject: it needs to be a key part of the subject, and if the subject is the sign (which it obviously is), then I'm not sure how you can possibly argue that the logo is not a key part of the sign. Keeping is therefore definitely not a good solution. If you believe it should be blurred (and would still be useful if blurred), the onus is on you to blur it. Or delete it. Storkk (talk) 11:58, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, but the onus is one anyone who thinks it is necessary. My duty is to keep images potentially useful, or delete them when there is no other solution than deletion. Any other practice is bad practice. Regards, Yann (talk) 12:28, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

You are demonstrating exactly why you should not close a DR in which you have participated. As established, the use of the logo is pretty clearly not de minimis and the photo is therefore a copyright violation. Please revert your closure and at least leave it open for an uninvolved admin to close. Storkk (talk) 12:41, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

أمجد إبراهيم

Can you to answer my question,please? Can I to upload files of one of person and I have (4.0)? — Preceding unsigned comment added by أمجد إبراهيم (talk • contribs) 23:47, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

@أمجد إبراهيم: Sorry, but what file are you talking about? Regards, Yann (talk) 05:43, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

Copyright violations

Hello,

Actually, I am new at Wikipedia, and I found a problem in uploading a photo to the pages that I created from zero. The pages are "Mkhitar Hayrapetyan" (eng, pending review), "Մխիթար Հայրապետյան" (hy), "Գևորգ Լոռեցյան" (hy). In all cases, the photos were given to me by the above-mentioned public figures for free usage. Actually, there's no copyright placed on these photos. Can you please advise me on how to proceed and correctly add photos to the mentioned pages?

Regards, Gevs1194. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gevs1194 (talk • contribs) 06:46, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

@Gevs1194: Hi,

All pictures have a copyright by default. And for any document previously published elsewhere, or not create by you, a formal written permission is needed from the copyright holder. Please see COM:OTRS for the instructions. Regards, Yann (talk) 06:56, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

File:Isabel Zelaa politikaria (cropped).jpg

Could you close de DR please? I mean removing the delete template, thanks Triplecaña (talk) 07:55, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

 Done Yann (talk) 14:26, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

Ticket:2018041510004936

Hello! Pourrais-tu jeter un œil à ce ticket que tu as initié (et le fermer si résolu )? Merci --Arthur Crbz (talk) 13:00, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

 Done Merci pour le suivi. ;) Yann (talk) 16:00, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

I dont like : redirection de fichier

Bonjour, j'ai fais les demandes de suppressions des fichiers suivants :

• 
• 
• 

En raison des erreurs qui se trouvent dans le nom de famille et sa pas de façon définitive mais plutôt pour les importés à nouveau sans les erreurs compris dans le nom de famille de ces derniers. Merci. Bien cordialement.

Filo gèn' (talk) 13:33, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

• (talk page stalker) @Filo gèn': Manque d’un seule "r" dans le noms de fichier c’est, pas de tout, raison pour suppression, encore moins vite. Vous pouvez essayer {{rename}}. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 14:40, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

Category:Badges of rank of the National People's Army of the German Democratic Republic

Hi Yann, you have deleted this category. What about the links like on this page: Category:Military rank insignia of the Volksmarine? Would redirect any better? Best regards Hystrix (talk) 17:35, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

Hi Hystrix,

It was empty, tagged for deletion, and it wasn't a redirect. It seems better to me to replace the links with the proper category. Regards, Yann (talk) 17:39, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

Which permission I should submit ?

I took this photo File:Farij_Marr_Hamid_AL_nazir.jpg by my own mobile and i uploaded it, you deleted it and asked for written permission, which permission i should submit and from whom?. --Manhal Hakr (talk) 21:27, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

@Manhal Hakr: Hi,

This is the picture of a book cover, which makes it a derivative work, so a permission from the designer and/or the book publisher is needed. Regards, Yann (talk) 11:18, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

File:Kosi River, by VN Films.webm

You may use this template {{subst:lrw|site}} so if youtube change licensing, the video will not be delete here, regards!! Ezarateesteban 11:03, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

Ezarate: It is done already, so I don't understand what you mean. Regards, Yann (talk) 11:20, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

Look now, revert if you don't agree. Ezarateesteban 11:29, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

Ezarate: Thanks. I may not do that myself, as one should not review his own uploads. Regards, Yann (talk) 11:37, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

The Washington Times

Bonjour Yann. J'ai importé récemment le fichier, File:The Washington Times (1919) « How swindlers flooded the World of Arts with fake Rodin statues » (A).jpg. Mais avec le recul, je souhaite harmoniser le nom. Au renommage du nouveau fichier, je ne sais plus si je dois inclure au début : File. Je crains de faire un doublon dans le genre, File:File:The Washington Times (1919) « L'affaire des faux Rodin » (B).jpg.

Pouvez-vous me renommer le fichier avec le libellé suivant, File:The Washington Times (1919) « L'affaire des faux Rodin » (B).jpg

Ce fichier est indexé sur trois articles : Amélie Diéterle en version française, Auguste Rodin et Amélie Diéterle dans sa version anglaise. Merci par anticipation pour votre aide. Bien cordialement, LIONEL76 (talk) 17:28, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

 Fait Yann (talk) 17:52, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

Merci beaucoup Yann. C'est super ! Bien à vous, LIONEL76 (talk) 18:25, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

Prereview

Hi, I'm again, do you think that File:Paisaje-montañoso-01134.jpg may pass a FPC? Regards!!! Ezarateesteban 22:38, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

Hi Ezarate,

I don't know. It is a nice picture, but I don't find it extraordinary. The while balance seems a bit too red to me. Regards, Yann (talk) 09:16, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

UDR

I think you forgot one? - Alexis Jazz ^{ping plz} 15:17, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

Btw, I uploaded this. - Alexis Jazz ^{ping plz} 15:56, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

I was not sure we need this PDF file, but  Done. And thanks, this is much better. Regards, Yann (talk) 16:29, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

Rédacteur31

Hey Yann, we keep missing each other on IRC so I thought I would just post here. I also saw your message the other day about the three months. That length was for various reasons. The previous 1 month block not solving the problems, the repeated reuploading of deleted material, and the refusal to actually take a moment to try to understand what was wrong (it was always, "it's mine! restore it now!"). I'd be more than happy to unblock right away if they showed that they understand even the smallest amount of copyright. The three months was just a fallback for what I saw was the unlikeliness of that in light of the previous one month block not doing anything.

As for the ticket, he once again claims that he is the "owner" of the photo. Again, ignoring the fact that he has been repeatedly told that the photographer is the copyright holder of photographs. He has now given multiple contradictory statements. First it was "his" photo, then it was SARL Carbonium Racing, then it was his ex-wife's photo. I'm also not a particular fan of the last line of that ticket for obvious reasons. Even if we were to ignore all of that, the ticket isn't acceptable for licensing anyways as it is incomplete and there is no proof whatsoever that he owns the copyright to it. That in addition to all the problems with this makes me highly skeptical that he understand what we are trying to tell him nor does he care to try. --Majora (talk) 00:29, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

Hi Majora,

Yes, the ticket is incomplete. I will ask him to provide some evidence.

If we put together all his claims, it seems that the photographer was hired by SARL Carbonium Racing for taking photographs during one or several races. As the company owner, he would be the legal holder of the copyright, while not being the photographer. What do you think? Regards, Yann (talk) 06:55, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

That would be fine, if it can be shown that he is A) the owner of the company (there is [4] which does lend some evidence to that) and B) the person was working for him at the time of the photograph. However, you brought up at ANB that the image that caused all of this is not even marked as belonging to SARL Carbonium Racing but to Mitjet Motorsport. Another contradiction that would have to be explained. --Majora (talk) 20:48, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

Yes, there are several images with different issues: one is taken on the race circuit, another is taken in a studio. Regards, Yann (talk) 07:23, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

 Comment See ticket:2018082510003901 and File:Photo portrait de Clément Berlié au Circuit de Spa-Francorchamps en 2017.jpg. Permission waiting for final validation. Yann (talk) 08:44, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

File:Pat Nixon in Brazil E2420-18.jpg and others

Dear Yann. Following your notification perhaps there was no reason to delete them but there was a reason to tag them with no source since there where missing essential information such as "at least a link to the web page (i.e., the url) on which the image or file is displayed (that is, not the web address of the file itself, but rather the web page containing the file". Besides uploader found this link (or at least a White House National Archives identifying number) but only today, well after the 7-days delay. Kind regards, --Patrick Rogel (talk) 10:29, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

Hi Patrick Rogel,

Sorry, but no. Sources are mentioned for these files. Nowhere in Commons policy it is specified that an online source is compulsory. I have tried to find them, but it seems there are not available online, but it doesn't mean we can't keep them. Regards, Yann (talk) 10:32, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

Amira Medunjanin

Amira Medunjanin (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information) (assign permissions)

Dear, Why did you block the user AMIRA MEDUNJANIN? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Enigma666rock (talk • contribs) 15:12, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

@Enigma666rock: Hi,

It is specified in the block log: for repeatedly uploading copyright violations. In addition, her edits may not be in scope. Regards, Yann (talk) 16:23, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

How can she violate her own rights? I really can not understand you. Amira Medunjanin violates the rights of Amira Medunjanin. Unbelievable. And you can check everything and all have been sent to you by email. Is there anyone who can be contacted for real help, not having a hundred administrators and you do not know who you are talking to. we would appreciate your help Yann. All the best! Enigma666rock (talk) 16:50, 28 August 2018 (UTC)enigma666rock

Hi,

The copyright holder is the photographer, not the subject of the picture. She can answer on her talk page, and request unblocking there. Regards, Yann (talk) 16:55, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

Answer

Dear, At request Sir Jeff_G ( https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Jeff_G. ) who was contacted by the artist personally, we send you pictures on mail; permissions-commons@wikimedia.org and volunteers-otrs@wikimedia.org with all information. but the mail nobody even looked at. Im the autor/owner of Images and Amira is Co-owner. What information do you still need? Address? Phones? Mails? Pages? Links? Please Help Us Enigma666rock (talk) 17:06, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) @Enigma666rock:

•  Oppose If a free license has been sent to OTRS, then the file will be restored automatically when and if the email is received, processed, and approved. Note that OTRS, like Commons, is entirely staffed by volunteers, and, also like Commons, is shorthanded, so it may be close to 7 days before the email is processed and the file is restored.

If the message was sent to the English language version of OTRS and the email has been properly received there the sender will receive an automatic reply with the ticket number. If the sender has not had a reply, please check that it was sent correctly and try again. Other language versions may or may not provide the automatic reply.   — Jeff G. ツ _{please ping or talk to me} 17:17, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

Fix

I've managed to fix this. Thanks! Triplecaña (talk) 08:14, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

Sysop

Bonjour Yann, avec tes droits d'admin, pourrais tu supprimer renommer User talk:Olivier LPB//Archives(14 February 2018 - 31 July 2018) vers User talk:Olivier LPB en écrasant les redirections ? Merci d'avance, c'était un bug de manip quand j'ai créé l'archive. Olivier LPB (talk) 13:32, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

 Fait Yann (talk) 14:02, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

Merci ! Olivier LPB (talk) 14:15, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

File:Logo Bioquímica.png

Hi Yan, we just made a CC mark in our website, to show a Creative Commons Licence. Therefore, according to https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:OTRS, the contact to OTRS is unnecessary. Can I upload again the image? Our webpage with CC mark: https://www.bioquimicabrasil.com/o-bioquimico KCMOKS (talk) 20:05, 1 September 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by KCMOKS (talk • contribs) 20:07, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

@KCMOKS: Hi,

Sorry, but -ND licenses are not acceptable for Commons. It should be CC-BY-SA or CC-BY. Regards, Yann (talk) 02:27, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

We re changing this at this very moment TO CC BY SA. Thanks Yan KCMOKS (talk) 02:29, 2 September 2018 (UTC)KCMOKS

 Done Yann (talk) 03:22, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

Approve my image please

Yann Can the Pd license license my image? File:CNCO.svg --Derasu (talk) 20:15, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

Hi Derasu,

I changed the license to PD-textlogo. Could you please add some categories? Idem for File:CNCO logo.png. Thanks, Yann (talk) 03:25, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

@Yann: Hi Yann I have not found another category for the image I went up, could you help me please?--Derasu (talk) 16:10, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

Pranab Mukherjee

Pranab Mukherjee Portrait failed Featured nomination but one voter commented that it is QI. Can it pass QI in your opinion? If you think so, I will nominate it.-Nizil Shah (talk) 13:45, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

Hi, The quality is good, but it can't be a Quality Image, as it is not the work of a Wikimedians. Regards, Yann (talk) 16:09, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

Template:PD-retouched-user

Before having an edit war, please check the history of Template:PD-retouched-user. Alexis Jazz reverted me. I believe my edit fixed the problem but he states otherwise. Triplecaña (talk) 14:37, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) His edit on {{PD-retouched-user}} turned the userlinks red, making them link to "cUser:Username" instead of "c:User:Username" (the template always links to the profile on Commons). - Alexis Jazz ^{ping plz} 16:03, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

Yes, right. Regards, Yann (talk) 16:16, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

Please approve this other image please

Yann please approve this other image that is also a logo File:Amrica_logo.png --Derasu (talk) 16:15, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

Derasu: This is a complex logo, so you need the permission from the original designer, even if this version is made by you, as it is a derivative work. Regards, Yann (talk) 16:18, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

Sorry Yann I thought the image could be PD Text Logo, because it's just a circle, rectangles and letters. --Derasu (talk) 16:22, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

You do not need to ping me in my own talk page. No, the map is not just "circle, rectangles and letters". Regards, Yann (talk) 16:25, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

Licence

Bonjour Yann. Je souhaiterais savoir si j'ai le droit d'importer cette photographie, publiée sous licence CC-BY-NC-SA 2.0 Creative Commons ? Je suis un peu perdu dans les termes des licences. Dans l'affirmative, comment dois-je présenter le fichier (auteur, lien, bandeau licence, …). Cette photographie doit intégrer la Catégorie Georges Diéterle. Avec mes remerciements pour votre aide. Bien cordialement, LIONEL76 (talk) 17:40, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

Bonjour LIONEL76,

Désolé, mais non, cette licence n'est pas acceptable pour Commons. Cordialement, Yann (talk) 17:45, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

Aucun problème Yann, il fallait que je pose cette question et qui me sert d'expérience pour l'avenir si je tombe encore sur ce genre de licence. Il vaut mieux prévenir que guérir ! Merci encore pour vos précieux conseils. Bien cordialement, LIONEL76 (talk) 18:18, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

Image question

Hi Yann, you were very helpful a few months ago when I was trying to establish whether an image was free and which template to use. Would you mind looking at something else? If you're too busy/would prefer not to, should I post them on Commons:Village pump/Copyright, open a deletion request, or ask that they be speedied?

In 2006 I obtained five images of Rudolf Vrba from his wife, as well as releases from her (numbers 2–6 below, ticket:2007110410000495). I realize now that she was not in a position to release them, and I didn't write the request properly, so I've removed them from the article or uploaded locally and claimed fair use. I now have to figure out whether to request deletion of them all from Commons or whether some are free because of age and location. In addition, there is one (number 1 below) that someone else uploaded.

Any chance these are free?

• 1. File:Rudolf Vrba, 1946.jpg: Author and first publication unknown. Believed to have been taken in Prague, Czechoslovakia (now the Czech Republic) in 1946. HPaul found it in his family album, and wrote that it was taken in Foto Wildi, a shop in Prague that no longer exists. The Czech Republic and Slovakia are 70 years pma.
• 2. File:Rudolf Vrba, school, 1935-1936.jpg. Author and first publication unknown (first publication probably enwiki, 2006, unless distributing/selling the school photos to parents counts as publication). Vrba at school, fourth from left, front row, Bratislava, Czechoslovakia (now Slovakia), 1935–1936. Source: Vrba's wife, who received it from a friend from Vrba's schooldays. She wrote: "The school photos from Rudi's gymnasium according to the only person who has these photos are in the public domain."
• 3. File:Arnost Rosin, Josef Weiss, Rudolf Vrba.jpg. Author and first publication unknown. Taken in Bratislava, Czechoslovakia (now Slovakia), June-July 1944. I wonder what the white marks are, lower right.

Should be deleted

• 4. File:Rudolf Vrba, c. 1964.jpg. Author unknown. His wife said it was part of a photograph of him and his daughters. It looks like a newspaper photograph.
• 5. File:Rudolf and Robin Vrba at their wedding, 1975.jpg. Author unknown. On their wedding day in 1975, I believe in Canada.
• 6. File:Rudolf Vrba, 1997.jpg: Author unknown.

Hoping you can advise. SarahSV ^(talk) 06:13, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

Hi SarahSV,

These pictures are orphan works, and it is always difficult to establish their copyright status. I don't understand why a OTRS permission was added to them, as the ticket doesn't include a permission. The last 3 are indeed not acceptable without a permission. For the others, the copyright status is quite uncertain. In most European countries, anonymous works are in the public domain 70 years after publication, although some (UK, Belgium) count the date of creation.

File:Rudolf Vrba, 1946.jpg: It is unlikely to have been published more than 70 years ago.

File:Arnost Rosin, Josef Weiss, Rudolf Vrba.jpg: It might be OK, but at least a plausible claim of publication old enough is needed.

File:Rudolf Vrba, school, 1935-1936.jpg: Idem above.

Could you please open a deletion request? You can just copy this discussion. Regards, Yann (talk) 07:21, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply, Yann. The ticket includes a release, just not a valid one; his wife wrote: "to the extent that I have ownership in the underlying intellectual property rights I hereby release these images under a free license so that they may be used by Wikepedia and anyone else for commercial and non-commercial use, with no restrictions."

Could you speedy-delete images 4, 5 and 6? Then I could nominate the others for deletion and hope that some can be saved. SarahSV ^(talk) 23:28, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

Actually, I've gone ahead and done it. See Commons:Deletion requests/Rudolf Vrba. SarahSV ^(talk) 03:15, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

SarahSV: Thanks, I deleted the last 3 images.

A final permission should not be added unless it is valid. We have another template for that case. See the "OTRS received" link for when the permission is not validated yet. Regards, Yann (talk) 05:04, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

Structured Data feedback - structured licensing and copyright

Mockups of structured licensing and copyright statements on file pages are posted. Please have a look over the examples and leave your feedback on the talk page. -- Keegan (WMF) (talk) 20:32, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

A new message for you!

Hello, Yann. You have new messages at Category_talk:Creations from WB2018IN#Confused with licenses!. You may remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

KCVelaga (talk · mail) 17:35, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

Logo

Hi Yann could you please approve my logo https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Chedraui_logo.png --Derasu (talk) 22:26, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

Hi, This is not OK. You need a permission for complex logos. Regards, Yann (talk) 04:33, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

Hi Yann I don´t speak english,así que seré breve tu no puedes denunciar mi imagen,porque son simple figuras y texto y no es un logotipo complejo como denuncias,así que retira esa denuncia y aprueba mi logotipo--Derasu (talk) 17:59, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

Hi Derasu, Sorry, I don't speak Spanish. ;o) You can have help in Spanish in Commons:Café. Regards, Yann (talk) 04:15, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

File:Judge_Graham_on_the_Scale_With_Speed_King_Podcast.jpg Deletion Question

Hi! It looks like you deleted the file, Judge_Graham_on_the_Scale_With_Speed_King_Podcast.jpg, under an alleged copyright violation. I uploaded the file on behalf of and at the discretion of the subject, Judge Graham, from his official website, JudgeGraham.com. But I think because I'm new to uploading files to Wikimedia Commons I might have indicated the wrong permissions on the upload on behalf of the subject in the photo.

Do you know how I would go about un-deleting the file if I've received permission to upload the photo to Wikimedia Commons by the subject in the photo? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Prufrock1888 (talk • contribs) 14:05, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

@Prufrock1888: Hi,

As for any image previously published elsewhere, we need a formal written permission from the copyright holder, which is probably the photographer, not the subject. Regards, Yann (talk) 09:35, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

Bonjour !

Salut j'ai compris seule mes photo apprend une appareil et d'un téléphone

Merci !

Chris Lewis 242 (talk) 14:03, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

2 questions

Hi, concerning this edit :

1) Can you quote the guidelines where it's written that a nominator with less than 50 edits can vote ?

2) Why deleting this FPX template ? The quality is just terrible and very far away from a FP. Also FYI, this template has just been added again by someone else -- Basile Morin (talk) 07:06, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

Hi Basile,

COM:FPC says Everybody can vote for his/her own nominations. No problem to FPX it for quality reasons. Regards, Yann (talk) 09:32, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

No, COM:FPC says Editors whose accounts have at least 10 days and 50 edits can vote. Everybody can vote for his/her own nominations. The nominator had exactly 3 edits before launching this, so could not vote.

"No problem to FPX it for quality reasons", but as the main reason given was the quality is insufficient, so why did you remove the template ? -- Basile Morin (talk) 10:00, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, but that's a long standing policy. The second phrase makes it clear that it is an exception to the first phrase. You can ask anyone about this. Regards, Yann (talk) 10:10, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, but this was not clear. If that was the main reason, sorry for the misunderstanding. Regards, Yann (talk) 10:10, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

Now concerning [No] this edit on this section, my messages are signed and are intended to remain signed. Then you should read the Talk Page guidelines : "Generally, you should not break up another editor's text by interleaving your own replies to individual points; this confuses who said what and obscures the original editor's intent" -- Basile Morin (talk) 10:36, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

About the vote (at least 50 edits), the guidelines are quite clear in my opinion and I  Disagree with your interpretation -- Basile Morin (talk) 10:42, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

It has been like this since this rule was created. We have had plenty of nominations with votes by new users. Regards, Yann (talk) 10:47, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

Could you give an example ? -- Basile Morin (talk) 10:50, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't have the time to dig into the archives. You can do it yourself or ask anyone else, if you don't believe me. Regards, Yann (talk) 12:26, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

Exactly, I don't believe you and think you're changing the official rules -- Basile Morin (talk) 13:04, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

You need to assume a bit of good faith... :( Yann (talk) 14:24, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

Good faith is on my side -- Basile Morin (talk) 14:27, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

OK After having asked other people, it appears you are right, Yann, concerning this particular rule. My apologies for having been too skeptical. Best regards -- Basile Morin (talk) 13:27, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

Basile Morin, a small point: Yann helped set up Commons back in September 2004, and even made the earliest edits to the Main Page. He also helped set up FP. So, I think you should work from the assumption that he knows the rules and guidelines. Anyone can make a mistake or forget or get sloppy, but here you seem to be treating Yann like he only started this year. -- Colin (talk) 12:20, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

Message de Un homme tranquille

Faute d'information pertinente sur la licence ou la source de votre fichier, il sera supprimé sans préavis. Merci de votre compréhension.

Bonjour,

J'ai ce message qui apparait quand je souhaite importer de nouvelles versions d'un fichier. J'ai ce message pour :

Signature d'Henri Détailleur.tif Signature de Charles Hyacinthe Joseph Lespagnol de Grimbry.jpg

J'ai mis dans la description pour sourcer ce fichier : issue des archives de la mairie de Wasquehal

Mais rien ne change, ces deux signatures sont prises sur les registres de la mairie et sur les archives départementales.

Un homme tranquille (talk) 10:08, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

PS : je viens de voir que j'ai ce message, sur toutes les photos que j'ai importé, même les plus anciennes, est-ce un bug ?

Un homme tranquille (talk) 10:12, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

Bonjour Un homme tranquille,

Non, ce n'est pas un bug. C'est avertissement parce que vous n'avez donné les bonnes informations : vous n'êtes pas le créateur de la signature, la date et la licence sont fausses. Merci de corriger sur le modèle de File:Signature de Charles Hyacinthe Joseph Lespagnol de Grimbry.jpg. Il faut encore corriger la date, et créer les catégories en rouge. Cordialement, Yann (talk) 08:19, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

Merci, Donc je prends en exemple votre correction sur le fichier Charles Hyacinthe Joseph Lespagnol de Grimbry ? Pour la date, je dois mettre la date a laquelle Charles Hyacinthe Joseph Lespagnol de Grimbry a signé ?

Un homme tranquille (talk) 10:37, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

Un homme tranquille: Oui, c'est ça. Yann (talk) 16:07, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

Chris Lewis

Salut Yann peut tu supprime la page Commons:Administrators/Requests/Chris Lewis 242? Je veux que tu supprime cette erreur je revenir quand je veux bien comprend wiki commons. Chris Lewis 242 (talk) 10:14, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

 Done Yann (talk) 10:59, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

Files by PennyLane89075

I spoke to PennyLane89075 in the IRC help channel; they said they uploaded the photos to Facebook (see this talk page's history), downloaded them, and uploaded that to the Commons. Apparently somewhere in the process the EXIF data got lost. I see no reason to doubt them and advised them to add a note to Facebook to clarify that they indeed are the same person and uploaded the images to the Commons, and to try and transfer the images from their mobile phone to a computer directly, without Facebook, and to re-upload them, in hopes that that might not lose the EXIF data. I tried a Google Images search for some of them and came up empty. Maybe you want to keep an eye on that? Some of them looked quite useful to me, and it would be a shame to lose them due to copyright confusion. Huon (talk) 15:06, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

@Huon: Hi,

I would advice PennyLane89075 to upload the original files, not small versions from Facebook. People upload all kinds of images to Facebook, and its copyright policy is not compatible with a free license. Thanks for your help. Regards, Yann (talk) 15:27, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

• https://www.facebook.com/isabelle.ismael1
• https://www.flickr.com/photos/lucyintheskywithdiamonds2/9660412950/in/dateposted/
• https://www.instagram.com/p/9PanNflUhj/?utm_source=ig_share_sheet&igshid=k4mko4nyd6zt
• https://www.instagram.com/p/7PxNhKFUtb/?utm_source=ig_share_sheet&igshid=1cemfneg4v8ay

I don't have the originals anymore, delete it then I know the work was mine I'm at peace with myself — Preceding unsigned comment added by PennyLane89075 (talk • contribs) 15:38, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

@PennyLane89075: Hi

Please sign your posts. You can send a permission via COM:OTRS (in English) or COM:OTRS/pt (in Portuguese).

For the future, I advise you to install the Commons App on your mobile, and upload the files directly. Regards, Yann (talk) 15:49, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

@PennyLane89075:

You can change the license on Flickr, and mention a free license on Instagram.

Personally I would be fine if you upload the Facebook files to Flickr with a free license.

The link to Facebook is broken, and for viewing the images, one need to be logged in to Facebook. Regards, Yann (talk) 16:01, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

PennyLane89075 will add a free license on her Facebook account. Yann (talk) 17:18, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

My photos

https://www.facebook.com/isabelle.ismael1

I'm not fully aware about license on instagram my account is not private.

My old flickr was hacked I have a new one but these picture from facebook I do not have the originals anymore I can only send the posts I appreaciate the time and patience I feel a bit better now so much assistance was given.

Yes I have downloaded wikimedia commons to my mobile so this does not happen again

187.115.178.111 16:18, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

Guerre d'édition sur Commons

Yann, bonsoir. Je vais à présent rarement sur Wikipedia mais je viens de voir que vous avez effacé mon montage Lophostropheus au motif que je l'aurais téléchargé. Mais c'est la journaliste Coelia Priam-Keilani de Saint-Mandrier (une personne tout-à-fait réelle) qui l'a téléchargé, et pour une raison très simple : c'est parce qu'en dépit du fait que dans son article [5] elle m'avait mentionné comme auteur de ce montage, l'administrateur Elcobbola le lui a attribué (voir sa liste d'images à effacer sur ma page de discussion [6]). En tout cas merci à vous de m'avoir averti que même pour des fonds de carte il faut mentionner la source et vérifier qu'elle est libre. Je l'ai fait par-ci, par-là quand j'ai eu un moment, mais je vois sur Commons des milliers de cartes qui ne mentionnent pas la source de leur fond (NASA ou autre) et qui sont donc, si j'ai bien compris, toutes susceptibles d'être effacées ? Il y a aussi cette photo [7] qui n'a eu aucun souci alors que sa source (qui, elle, a disparu) est le Muséum national d'Histoire naturelle, comme pour plusieurs de celles que j'ai téléchargé mais qui, elles, ont été effacées. Donc il suffit qu'un document ait un rapport avec moi pour être effaçable ? Mes collègues ou relations sont tous mes faux-nez, à bloquer d'urgence et à vie ? Après des années de bénévolat et pas tant d'erreurs de téléchargement que ça, je ne suis plus qu'un charlatan, un voleur de ceux qui veulent bien me citer, un plagiateur des cartes en anglais je traduis en français ? Et tout ça, simplement parce que j'ai cru que je pouvais monter en Photoshop quelques portraits d'après des photographies anonymes de personnes décédées depuis un certain temps ? (Les familles de ces personnes m'ont passé ces photos pour les mettre dans Commons, mais elles ne m'ont peut-être pas donné ces images qu'à moi... il y a tant d'autres sites.) Remarquez que je m'en fiche, je ne suis plus actif. Si la totalité de mon travail est détruit et mon nom sali par un administrateur qui a décrété que j'étais un salaud, ce n'est pas un souci. Tout est éphémère de toute manière. Pauvre Lophostropheus, et pauvres professeurs du Muséum ! Comme je dis toujours, y compris à ceux qui m'insultent, do for the best. À vous, un bon automne ! Cordialement, --Spiridon Ion Cepleanu (talk) 21:02, 17 September 2018 (UTC) cheminant doucement en direction d'un monde sans copyright et sans procès d'intention.

Bonjour Spiridon Ion Cepleanu,

Oui, il y a de nombreuses images sur Commons qui ne devraient pas y être. Certains ont avance le chiffre de 1% (500 000 fichiers), ce qui est à mon avis une estimation basse. Si vous estimez qu'une image a été supprimée par erreur, vous pouvez demander la restauration sur COM:UDR, en fournissant le maximum d'informations possibles. De nombreux fichiers sont supprimés simplement parce que les informations complètes n'ont pas été fournies. Cordialement, Yann (talk) 04:07, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:DirkCoster1930s.jpg

Regarding this close, can you answer the question I posed: don't we need a source that says that no one knows who took this photo, per Commons:Anonymous works? Finnusertop (talk) 13:14, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

You can never prove a negative. If the source is reliable, and no author is mentioned, it should be OK. Regards, Yann (talk) 15:56, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

New discussion on Commons talk:Structured data

Hello. I've started a new, important discussion about creating properties for Commons on Wikidata. Please come join in, if the process is something that interests you or if you can help. Keegan (WMF) (talk) 16:48, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

Regarding File:KD Lekir during passing exercise 2011 1801x1165.jpg

Regarding File:KD Lekir during passing exercise 2011 1801x1165.jpg, which was deleted in Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Junchuann. I found the original file (w:File:KD Lekir lead USS Bunker Hill.jpeg) on English Wikipedia with more information. Therefore, with the possibility of undeletion, I am writing to inform you about my request at Commons:Undeletion requests/Current requests#File:KD Lekir during passing exercise 2011 1801x1165.jpg, thank you.廣九直通車 (talk) 06:15, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

 Done Yann (talk) 03:30, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

Commons:Featured picture candidates/candidate list-Maitreya Buddha in Thiksey Monastery

This image of Maitreya Buddha in Thiksey Monastery I had taken this much close. You know how difficult to take full length portrait there in low light and small space. But I hv another image this one

pls help me.Thanks in advance.

Sumita Roy Dutta (talk) 12:47, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

@Sumita Roy Dutta: Hi, I visited this monastery in August, so I know how difficult it is to take a picture of this statue. But FP are meant to be the best of the best, so they have to be perfect. You are close, but not FP yet. Sorry. Your other picture is interesting, but the top is also cut. Overall, the colors are better in your current nomination. Regards, Yann (talk) 14:03, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

File:Francesco Zicchieri daticamera 2018.jpg

Salut Yann, please see File talk:Alessandro Battilocchio.jpg. Images from camera.it are available under CC-by-4.0, so this one should be restored. I remember zapping a lot of images from this uploader myself, but as it turned out they can be kept. De728631 (talk) 16:13, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

 Done Yann (talk) 16:33, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

File:Kārlis Johansons - 189x300.jpg

With most wiki systems I learn through trial and error until I get the hang of it. I make mistake is good faith that someone might fix my mistakes, clean up my accidents, or teach me about it.

As I was uploading this file I had linked to where I got it, twice. One is in the body of the description. I don't know where the link went for the copyright. Either way, this is the source: http://www.la.lv/karlis-johansons-cesnieks-ar-pasaules-elpu I also came across another variation on the same photo here: https://monoskop.org/Karl_Ioganson#mediaviewer/File:Karl_Ioganson_c1922.jpg It claims it's from 1922. I had assumed it was old enough to be copyright free and was eagerly waiting for feedback about it.

Also, perhaps you can help me with the Wikipedia infobox on the English article for Karlis Johansons. I just don't know why all the data isn't showing up, including his photo. I spent hours trying to fix it.

Thanks in advance, please ping be back. ~ JasonCarswell (talk) 02:15, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

Hi JasonCarswell,

1. You need to add a license to all files you upload. If you don't the files will be deleted after a week. The source gives no information about the date of first publication, which is a bit of a problem.

2. The description is too long here. This text is for Wikipedia, not for Commons.

3. {{Anonymous-EU}} might be OK, but I am not sure all people would agree. Regards, Yann (talk) 03:36, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. It's a start. ~ JasonCarswell (talk) 03:39, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

@JasonCarswell: A short description in Latvian would be useful. Regards, Yann (talk) 04:52, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

File:Smolasty by Bartosz Jasik.png

Hi,

Could you undelete File:Smolasty by Bartosz Jasik.png. There is a proper agreement sent to OTRS: Ticket:2018092210004521.

Cheers, Polimerek (talk) 10:58, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

Hi Polimerek,

Are you an OTRS agent? If not, as I don't speak Polish, please ask an agent. Regards, Yann (talk) 11:11, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

Yes, I am an OTRS agent. The agreement sent to OTRS is OK, therefore I ask to undelete this file. Polimerek (talk) 22:23, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

@Polimerek: OK then. Please add {{User OTRS}} on your user page. Regards, Yann (talk) 03:09, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

Yes, Polimerek is an OTRS member. @Polimerek: you may want to put {{User OTRS}} on your user page. sorry Yann already suggested that.

Interesting this, I've asked Smolasty repeatedly to contact OTRS. But only now after telling them at https://pl.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Smolasty&diff=54545089&oldid=54544807 did they respond. "zmiana zdjęcia na prośbę artysty" means "Change photos at artist's request" btw, so Smolasty is not Smolasty himself. - Alexis Jazz ^{ping plz} 03:34, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

The agreement is not from Smolasty but by author of the photograph. Polimerek (talk) 20:15, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

Zawadowski Teodor.jpg

Dear Yann, in response to your restoring of the mentioned file after it was removed by user:P199, I should tell you that your reference to AGF was already responded by me. Regards. --Mhhossein ^talk 12:01, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

So what? I can agree that the images authorship can be questioned, but overall I don't see what you want from this user. There is no record of copyright violations, so why not just believe what this user says? That is the meaning of "assume good faith", not what you wrote. Regards, Yann (talk) 14:56, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the response. What I wrote was the exact content of Commons:Assume good faith, not my own words. --Mhhossein ^talk 13:17, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

No photograph categories?

I believe you are mistaken about there being no photograph categories. There's countless photograph categories on the Commons. – Illegitimate Barrister (talk • contribs), 21:31, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) I haven’t looked into the issue at hand, but IME “Photographs” cats almost always fall into one of four groups. The most obvious refer to a photographic medium or technique (black & white, aerial, HDR, &c.); they’re often hidden, and sometimes given sort-keys beginning with an asterisk. They often share a parent called simply Photographs of X, which I take to mean “Images of X by photographic medium or technique”. (I suppose these would ideally complement X in art, but ordinary colour photos are not included. Note that cats by camera model normally take the form Taken with (camera), “photographs” presumably being considered implicit.) Another group comprises photos of subjects that usually appear as symbols or diagrams, for example real-world textile flags as opposed to graphic representations of flag designs. Then there are some like Photographs from (archive), where I guess other types of media might come from that source; these are usually hidden. The last are in a form something like (Region) photographs taken on (date), where I think the “photographs” part is quite redundant, but they seem to have been applied fairly systematically in places.—Odysseus1479 (talk) 01:28, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Julien Vinson.jpg

This is to ask that you undo this closure and give more time for discussion. Closing after two days as "ridiculous request" is not appropriate, particularly when two editors supported deletion, one did not feel strongly, and only you wanted to keep the image. Two points:

• The Bibliothèque nationale de France has published the collective work containing this image on their Gallica website here, stating it is in the public domain, as is any collective work in France 70 years after publication. However, the components in a PD collective work are not necessarily in the public domain in the sense that they can be extracted and published in some other context. It must be shown that this image is individually in the public domain. See en:collective work (France).
• It is entirely possible that the creator took the picture when young and lived long enough that the picture is still covered by copyright. As User:Innotata pointed out, Pierre Jacques Smit published illustrations starting ca. 1883 and died in 1960. There will be many other examples.

We are, in fact, in a good position to calculate the probability that the image is not in the public domain.

1. Wikimedia has many photographs from this period where the year of creation is known, as are the photographer's birth and death years.
2. For example, File:Ferdinand André Fouqué (Eugène Pirou, 1883).jpg was taken by Eugène Pirou (1841–1909) when he was aged 42, and he lived to age 68.
3. If we took a sample of 50 portraits by different photographers, that would give us two distributions: creator's age at time of creation, and creator's age at time of death.
4. There will be some bias towards photographs by established photographers, but we may be able to adjust for that.
5. Perhaps in the 1880s the average age at creation was 40, and for photographers active in the 1880s the average age at death was 66. That would give average years between creation and death of 26, so the average photo taken in 1883 would be by a creator who died in 1909, and the photo would have become public domain in 1979.
6. However, 1883 photographs taken when the creator was younger and lived longer would still be non-free. E.g. age 20, lived to 88, non-free until 2022.
7. From the two distributions a statistician could easily calculate the probability that the photo was non-free.

The two real questions are:

• What is the probability that a photo from 1883 where we do not know the creator is non-free?
• What probability would we consider acceptable? 1%? 5%? 50%?

I consider that this is an important discussion, and the deletion request should be reopened to obtain more opinions. Thanks, Aymatth2 (talk) 13:20, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

Hi Aymatth2,

Sorry, but no. I closed this DR specially because the arguments are ridiculous. We accept information from GLAM unless evidence to the contrary, which you have not provided. So as I said, if you want to contest the copyright status of these files, please write to the BNF. Commons is the wrong place for that.

I would consider you pursuing this a waste of my time (and yours), and therefore inappropriate. The horse is dead, please drop the stick. Thanks, Yann (talk) 14:17, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

Maybe the more accurate license would be {{PD-EU-no author disclosure}}. -- Geagea (talk) 14:06, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

• We do not really know that the author remained anonymous. Aymatth2 (talk) 14:56, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

I did not ment {{PD-EU-anonymous}} but {{PD-EU-no author disclosure}}. Not the same. -- Geagea (talk) 15:07, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

Better still to use {{PD-France}}. Actually this template is incomplete. Before 1996, the rule was 50 years pma + war extension, so it should be 50 + 6.5 years + 8.5 years, so 65 years pma. See Commons:Copyright rules by territory/France#Wartime copyright extensions. Regards, Yann (talk) 15:55, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

It is similar. Perhaps the author published the image a few years later in an album of their work. We do not know, and it is very hard to establish that is not the case. There is a little red stamp on the image. Perhaps that gives a clue. Aymatth2 (talk) 15:24, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

Many postcards from that time have a similar red stamp. It doesn't mean anything. Regards, Yann (talk) 15:44, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

4 June 1927 Le Figaro page.

• Yann, you do not seem to understand the concept of a collective work in France. See en:collective work (France). The BnF rightly considers that any collective work published more than 70 years ago is in the public domain. But this is similar to the concept of divided copyright. The contributors have given the publisher the right to publish their work in the context of the collective work, but retain the right to publish elsewhere. The example to the right shows the problem. The BnF states here that the newspaper is in the public domain, but the first story on the page is by Maurice Levaillant (1883–1961), and is still in copyright. It cannot be extracted from the page and published elsewhere. I ask once again that you reopen the deletion discussion. Aymatth2 (talk) 14:56, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

• I understand it pretty well, and I agree with you here. ;o) Please nominate this file for deletion. Regards, Yann (talk) 15:42, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
• Let's try for a bit of consistency here. The BnF says that all collective works published before 1948 are in the public domain, and they should know. They have been loading thousands of sets of collective work page images up on Gallica, with an infobox that says the set is "public domain". That does not mean we can freely extract parts of those pages and publish them on Commons. They have to stay in the collective work context. Arguably the work by Levaillant in the image to the right is within the context, but clearly File:Julien Vinson 1000.jpg has been removed from context. How likely is it to be in the public domain? That can be calculated, and we can then decide if the risk of copyright violation is warranted. The discussion should be allowed to continue. Aymatth2 (talk) 16:22, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

Why your calculatation is wrong

I made a bit of research to show you why your calculation is wrong.

You have to use an average, not a specific case (my grand-mother was also born in the 19th century, and lived quite old, but it is beside the point).

Life expectancy at birth in 1883 was around 40 years for males, cf. [8]. But we should use life expectancy at the time the work was made. If the photographer was 20 when he made it in 1883, he was born in 1863. Life expectancy at 20 was around 50 years at that time (it is difficult to find exact figures, but evaluation can be made from [9]).

So we have 1863 + 50 + 65 = 1978, probable date of copyright expiration. You have a 40 years margin in case of errors.

Regards, Yann (talk) 16:47, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

• Male life expectancy at birth was low in those days because of high infant mortality. Life expectancy at age 20 was still low by today's standards. But that lumps together the large number of laborers in dirty and dangerous jobs with the much smaller number of office workers and university professors. Presumably the people with the soft jobs lived longer. Work in a photography studio seems like a soft job, although the chemicals may have caused health problems.

Averages can be misleading. Two sets of numbers that average 5 are "4,5,6,5,5" and "1,3,5,7,9". In the first set, no numbers are below 4 or above 6. In the second set, all but one of the numbers are below 4 or above 6.

If we sample 1880s photographs by different photographers, recording age when the photograph was taken, year of birth and year of death, these are real results from the field of study. They may cluster tightly around the average, but my guess is that many photographers started working in a studio in their teens, and remained in this occupation for most of their life; some died young and some lived into a ripe old age. We need the sample, and then a statistician can extrapolate and tell us the probability of a copyvio.

The place for this discussion is in the deletion request. Aymatth2 (talk) 18:24, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

Aymatth2, since the DR is closed, if you feel something is wrong with the closure of the DR why don't you simply renominate it, hopefully with fresh arguments ? — Racconish ^💬 06:32, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

• @Racconish: I am trying to follow the process. I have no new arguments. There is a low but significant probability that the picture is copyright protected. The closing reason was "ridiculous request". That is not a valid reason. The closing admin should reopen the deletion request. Aymatth2 (talk) 13:28, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

The process is to ask the closing admin to reopen, which he declined. In such case, if you still disagree, you should renominate the file for deletion, provided, per Commons:Deletion_requests#Appealing_decisions, "you can add new information or clarification". — Racconish ^💬 13:41, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

There is no urgency. The closing admin seems to now understand that under French law although the collective work holding the image is clearly PD, the image itself may not be PD. He seems to be moving towards understanding there is mathematically a significant possibility of the image being non-free, which can be calculated using data from Commons photographs of this period. Aymatth2 (talk) 14:11, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

Just to be clear: I disagree with you. — Racconish ^💬 15:02, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

@Racconish: Do you disagree that a French PD collective work may contain a non-PD image, or disagree that an 1883 photo taken by a 20-year-old such as Pierre Jacques Smit (1863–1960) who lived past age 85 is non-PD? Aymatth2 (talk) 15:48, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

I disagree File:Julien Vinson.jpg is as a collective work and therefore that your considerations on collective works in France are relevant to this image. — Racconish ^💬 16:30, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

The file is certainly not a collective work, but it is taken from Livre: La pensée nouvelle : les matérialistes (1865-1883), which obviously is, and which the BnF says is PD. Aymatth2 (talk) 16:47, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

Taking a different tack, I ran some PatScan queries, e.g. [10] for articles in the .en wikipedia on photographers with a death year between 1949 and 1955, then picked out articles with birth years before 1867. A surprisingly high percentage met the age criteria.

• en:Arlington Nelson Lindenmuth (1856–1950)
• en:Benedicte Wrensted (1859–1949)
• en:Frederick Lawson Whitlock (1860-1953)
• en:Johann Victor Krämer (1861–1949)
• en:Friedrich C. Krichauff (1861–1954)
• en:Sebastian Finsterwalder (1862–1951)
• Auguste Lumière (1862–1954)
• en:Barnett McFee Clinedinst (1862–1953)
• en:Oscar Grossheim (1862-1954)
• en:Rosaline Margaret Frank (1864–1954)
• en:Hugh Exton (1864-1955)
• en:Henry K. Landis (1865–1955)
• en:Anders Beer Wilse (1865–1949)
• en:Marie Høeg (1866–1949)
• en:Jean-Baptiste Tournassoud (1866-1951)
• en:Alfred John Tattersall (1866–1951)

It seems that photographers who get Wikipedia articles live long lives. Aymatth2 (talk) 16:47, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

Your sample is obviously biaised. For these 16 people, how many lived a much shorter life?

File:Julien Vinson.jpg is public domain because the photographer is unknown, not because it is a collective work. In that case, the copyright term is counted from the date of publication. Regards, Yann (talk) 16:52, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

Yes. And the book is not une œuvre collective. — Racconish ^💬 16:56, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

PetScan counts of .en wikipedia articles in category:photographer and category:1949 deaths thru category:1955 deaths, e.g. [11], are:

Died	Total	Born before 1867
1949	13	4
1950	11	1
1951	12	3
1952	9	0
1953	17	2
1954	10	4
1955	18	2
Totals	90	16 (18%)

• I would not read too much into this. It is not a statistically valid sample. Photographers who get Wikipedia articles may live longer than most, and the subject probably could not afford a fashionable photographer. But he may have gone to a young and cheap photographer who lived for a long time. There is a very real probability that the author lived long enough for the image to still be under copyright. Assuming it is public domain because it was published in 1883 would be truly ridiculous.
• I see no evidence that the author is unknown. This seems to be a post-closure argument. How would it be proven?
• La pensée nouvelle : les matérialistes (1865-1883) precisely matches the definition of a collective work with multiple authors. The Bibliothèque nationale de France is right to say that it is in the public domain. They would never claim an image by an author they have not identified is in the public domain, and they have not made that claim.

This lengthy discussion, relevant to many other cases, should be in a deletion request and not tucked away on a talk page. I hope and expect that Yann will recognise that closure after two days was hasty, and will act as a responsible administrator and re-open the discussion. Aymatth2 (talk) 00:36, 27 September 2018 (UTC)