User talk:とある白い猫/Archive/2006/12
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
——————————————— Archive, December 2006 ——————————————— fix[edit]Thanks for fixing! --Svencb 22:04, 2 December 2006 (UTC) Apology regarding two images[edit]First of all, allow me to introduce myself, I am the newer incarnation of the short-lived User:CABAL account, which I will not be bothering with any more. The purpose of this is for me to express my sincerest apologies at failing to provide suitable edit summaries for this and this, which I must admit was done in a haphazard manner. In any case, you'll notice that I've reverted to my prior versions, but I see no way I can provide further details as to the changes done. I would like to do so and was wondering if it was possible to insert the relevant information? Specifically, metadata chunks (optional image data) were removed from the files and the compression further optimized; this has no effect on the final images whatsoever, with the exception that it may slightly complicate heavier editing efforts such as in Photoshop. Exterminatus 12:21, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
Last year I received an e-mail from the photographer releasing this image to Wikipedia without restrictions. ˉanetode╦╩ 00:04, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Why did you revert Image:Star of life.svg to again include the incorrect sentence and tone with 3 identical links? -- Jeandré, 2006-12-13t11:48z
Sorry, but did you read de:Schöpfungshöhe before deleting this image? This image could not be copyrighted! --Mogelzahn 15:55, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
yes, still with us[edit]but rlly busy, thanks for stopping by. I love deleting my userpage for some reason tho. DVD R W 01:17, 15 December 2006 (UTC) Sockpuppet[edit]I think 82.45.195.6 may be a sock puppet of 80.168.29.18. According to my map they are both from the Europe. Also, they both don't like the big picture. It is very coincidental. Could you please ask CheckUser to confirm this? Jecowa 09:49, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
Hi Cool Cat, you closed a deletion request with as I understand 'deleted' but the image is still there/there again, or perhaps you wrote something different from what action you meant to take. Could you please take another look at the above link? Thanks. Siebrand 23:42, 17 December 2006 (UTC) trophy[edit]The trophy is copyrighted unless you can prove that it is not. Insisting will not solve the matter. --Cat out 05:49, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
It wasn't made or thought of in the US, it was in the UK and the copyright for the uk states that the person that thought of it automatically has copyright but the trophy that the picture is taken from is a replica and in the UK copyright it says the inventor(person who thought of it) has copyright as long as its not been copied from existing work, which the replica is because its been copied from the original one, simple as. "Once in physical form, as long as it is an original work (in the sense of not having been copied from an existing work, rather than in the sense of being novel or unique), copyright in that work is automatically vested in (i.e. owned by) the person who put the concept into material form." Ricky212 07:02, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
so why cant we get other people's thought on it like in the normal deletion process because its not a clear case. I'm not going to upload it but I want it to be voted on like in the deletion process because there's points to be taken. It's not dictatorship here in wikimedia, and your not a dictator to take that different approach; it's democracy here in wikimedia.Ricky212 23:52, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
Message[edit]Hi, I don't understand quite the nature of your message. I'm the main creator of article fr:Révolte d'Oaxaca, as the history can testify. Therefore I shall ask for an explanation. My will to contribute using an anon IP comes from a personal decision. Yours, 86.208.180.81 21:52, 21 December 2006 (UTC) Message[edit]Hey CoolCat, excuse me, I don't visit Wikimedia that often. You contacted me over [[Image:Statue of Saddam Hussein being draped with the US Flag.jpg|the "Saddam being draped" image]] and I am answering here because I don't know if you are still paying attention to my user talk page. Honestly, I cannot reproduce how I simply uploaded the image - I must have been overly eager to do so because of it's (suggested) high symbolism in the whole Iraq War newsbuzz. I think I had in mind that CNN images were somewhat PD and simply applied this to AP photos. Do you know which license fits (if there is one - this image is unusually important to me ;-) )? I'll have an eye on something like that in future although I mostly upload US military pics in {{PD-USGov-Military} images. Thanks for sharpening my senses :-), --Predator capitalism 08:12, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
US Army Institute of Heraldry[edit]I'm trying to compile galleries of US Military Coats of Arms. I noticed a moment ago that you had applied a Request for Deletion on a number of images uploaded from the US Army Institute of Heraldry with the comment that "Images are not free enough" (I think the request has since been removed, since I can't find it anymore, so forgive me if I am misremembering). I was wondering why you decided to have these images deleted, and what you meant by "not free enough." (and now I'm registered on the Commons) v/r, Hammon27 21:30, 27 December 2006 (UTC) Sorry for my ignorance; the computer I was on wouldn't even let me go to the Commons website. I have checked out your posts on the Commons:Deletion requests page and I'm looking over a conversation on this very topic from 2005. It can be found at Commons:Deletion_requests/Archive/2005/11#Template:PD-USGov-Military-Army-USAIOH The USAIOH images are not restricted to non-commercial use. They have a qualification on commercial use, which is not the same thing. v/r, Hammon27 22:26, 27 December 2006 (UTC) According to the first footnote on the basic Commons:Licensing page, http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Licensing#_note-0 , [the use of free content by anyone, for any purpose] "This may be regulated by geographical, trademark, or other laws unrelated to copyrights, which Wikimedia Commons can not account for. Wikimedia Commons tries to ensure that any such restrictions are mentioned on the image description page, but it is the responsibility of the user to ensure that the use of the media does not violate any applicable law. In particular, copyrights of certain material may have expired in one country, while still being applicable in another country. Furthermore, many commons licences, such as GFDL and Creative Commons Share-Alike, require that any derivatory work must be released under the same license conditions." The Institute of Heraldry is mentioned on this page as well. Is this page being vandalized by pro-insignia forces? Is there a more basic, more canon, document that spells out what the Wikimedia Commons copyright policy actually is, which would support your efforts to rip all insignia off of Wikipedia? If so, that makes me very sad, and I would like to read it. Thank you for your assistance. v/r, Hammon27 22:43, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
I agree with you about the free licenses needing to be free for use without any reservations or permissions. Reading "Jimbo's" post about the rationale for not allowing copyrighted works with a "free for non-commercial use" policy, it makes perfect sense not to allow those images. The difference here is the works of USAIOH are not copyrighted works. They are works that are in the public domain, and are not subject to copyright by US statute. The restriction of commercial use is a matter of US Federal law, which is allowed by Wikimedia copyright standards, as far as I've been able to discern from reading the policy pages. The PD-USgov tag is not redundant with the USAIOH tag because the former makes no mention of the special statutory protections that the images from the USAIOH have (again, independent of their status in the public domain) regarding commercial use. Likewise, the other -Military tags are either not truly applicable (referring to works done by "an employee," not an agency like USAIOH), apply only to rank insignia or badges, or don't include the required statutory language. --—the preceding unsigned comment was added by Hammon27 (talk • contribs) hi[edit]How are things going? I had originally posted on your talk at wikipedia, but it seems as if you've departed that project, and hence I've moved my commentary here. I just briefly stopped by to make minor edits and wanted to see if everything was okay.-84.169.214.108 21:25, 30 December 2006 (UTC) (Randall Brackett)
|