User talk:Efloean/Archive

Welcome to the Commons, Efloean!

First steps tutorial Our first steps help file and our FAQ will help you a lot after registration. They explain how to customize the interface (for example the language), how to upload files and our basic licensing policy. You don't need technical skills in order to contribute here. Be bold contributing here and assume good faith for the intentions of others. This is a wiki - it is really easy. Getting help More information is available at the Community Portal. You may ask questions at the Help desk, Village Pump or on IRC channel #wikimedia-commons. You can also contact an administrator on their talk page. If you have a specific copyright question, ask at Commons talk:Licensing.		Goodies, tips and tricks Put Babel boxes on your user page so others know what languages you can speak and indicate your Graphics abilities. All your uploads are stored in your personal Gallery Please sign your name on Talk pages by typing ~~~~ Use the CommonSense tool to find good categories for your files (then other people can find them too!) To link to an image page, write this: [[:Image:Foo.jpg]], it makes this: Image:Foo.jpg If you're copying files from another project, be sure to use the CommonsHelper Made a mistake? Did you want to rename or move a file? Simply upload the file again and mark the old one like this: {{bad name|Correct name}} For more information read the full Deletion guidelines
(P.S. Would you like to provide feedback on this message?)

Ser det ble litt dobbeltarbeid på oss . Jeg omkategoriserte (nesten) alt som lå direkte i Category:Norway, rett og slett fordi dette er en toppkategori som ikke bør fylles med bilder som ellers finnes i underkategorier. Finnrind 18:41, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Oj, beklager. Skal passe på å kategorisere ting bedre senere ;) Erik Fløan 14:29, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Image:Aasenfiord.JPG

Flott bilde! Finn Rindahl 18:42, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Jo, takk ^^. Gikk faktisk opp en 3 km lang vei for å få tatt bildet, utelukkende for å legge det ut som PD på Commons =D Skulle så gjerne hatt et skikkelig kamera for å ta bilder med, men for nøye meg med mobilen inntil videre =) Erik Fløan 18:25, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Godt jobba! Du har tydeligvis et adskillig bedre mobilkamera enn jeg har ;-) Finn Rindahl 18:54, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Jeg må bare anbefale Sony Ericsson K700i, det er en fantastisk bra mobil med godt kamera osv. =D Erik Fløan 20:32, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

File:KajLeoJohannesen2008.jpg

---

There seems to be a problem regarding the description and/or licensing of this particular file. It has been found that you've added in the image's description only a Template that's not a license and although it provides useful informations about the image, it's not a valid license. Could you please resolve this problem, adding the license in the image linked above? You can edit the description page and change the text. Uploading a new version of the file does not change the description of the file. This page may give you more hints on which license to choose. Thank you.

This message was added automatically by Sz-iwbot, if you need some help about it, ask its master (Sz-iwbot (talk)) or go to the Commons:Help desk. --Sz-iwbot (talk) 20:22, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

UH-bilder

Hei. For slike bilder (der du har fått tillatelse fra tredjepart) må du få dem til å sende en bekreftelse til OTRS, slik at den frie lisensen kan dokumenteres. Hilsen --Kjetil_r 15:05, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Jeg har ikke noe skriftlig bevis på det (enda). Fotografen sitter to pulter til høyre for meg på skolen (og er også medlem i UH), så tillatelsen var muntlig. Kan prøve å få fikset noe skriftlig. Erik Fløan (talk) 18:18, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Ok, det er ikke verre enn at han sender en e-post til info-no@wikimedia.org der han skriver «Jeg bekrefter at jeg er fotografen og har alle rettighetene til <http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Henrik_asheim.jpg> og <http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:UH_sentralstyre.jpg>, og at jeg går med på lisensene som er angitt på bildenes beskrivelsessider. Hilsen Stig Roar Aftret».

Det er forresten bra at vi fikk bilde av Asheim og resten av sentralstyret. Du skal ikke se bort fra at et par av dem når langt i politikken, og når de blir regjeringsmedlemmer om 20 år er det alltid morsomt å ha frie bilder fra deres yngre dager ;-) --Kjetil_r 21:10, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Bilder fra norden.org

Heisann, du bør ikke laste opp flere bilder fra norden.org før vi får avklart om vi virkelig kan regne dem som lisensiert under cc-by-sa-3.0. Det at bildene er merket med "All images may be used freely provided the source is attributed (e.g. NN - norden.org). " er ikke det samme som at de uten videre er frie i Commonsforstand. Finn Rindahl (talk) 16:27, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Vel, jeg snakket med en av fotografene, Magnus Fröderberg, om lisensering og slikt (og nevnte Wikipedia spesifikt), og han mente det skulle være innenfor cc-by-sa-3.0, ettersom dette oppfylte kravet om kreditering. Da har jeg egentlig vanskelig for å se hvordan dette ikke skal kunne følge lisensen på en skikkelig måte, men kan avvente med å laste opp noe mer til vi evt. har klaret opp grundigere i dette. Men som sagt, fotografen mente den nevnte lisensen oppfylte kravene som var stilt. Erik Fløan (talk) 18:15, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Norden.org har blitt diskutert før (bla. på Commons:Deletion requests/Template:Norden.org). Som vanlig er «fri bruk hvis kreditering» langt fra en fri lisens, og man kan uansett ikke sette på Creative Commons-lisenser med mindre dette har blitt eksplisitt avklart. Det går jo selvsagt an å spørre norden.org mer formelt om de går med på en fri lisens, men jeg har selv spurt to ganger. Første gang fikk jeg ikke noe svar, og andre gang fikk jeg til svar at bildene ikke kunne modifiseres. Jeg vil derfor tippe at det ikke er så mye poeng i å bruke tid og krefter på dette. Litt synd egentlig, for jeg mistenker at de ville like det veldig godt om vi brukte bildene, men at ubegrunnet frykt for frie lisenser hindrer dem. --Kjetil_r 22:10, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Jeg kan ta kontakt med noen på norden.org selv og prøve å avklare om de egentlig snakker om fri eller ikke-kommersiell bruk. Har på følelsen at de kanskje ikke helt ser forskjellen og at de ikke har noe imot at vi bruker bildene. Det er også greit å nevne at de har standardisert lisensen som er brukt på de ulike språkversjonene, slik at «ikke-kommersielt» ikke lengre er nevnt. Slik sett er det litt mindre forvirring enn før. Erik Fløan (talk) 12:06, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Du må selvsagt også avklare om de godtar at man modifiserer bildene (det er grunn til å tro at de opplever dette som problematisk). Det aller beste ville jo være om du eksplisitt fikk dem til å godta en CC-lisens (og da ikke bare et «ja, det er greit»-svar, men et «ja, vi godtar Creative Commons Attribution ShareAlike 3.0 for disse bildene»-svar), men hvis de ikke vil det bør du få dem til å skrive klart og tydelig at de er inneforstått med at bildene (fra fotografens synsvinkel) skal kunne brukes til ethvert formål, og at de skal kunne modifiseres. --Kjetil_r 06:01, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Skal prøve å få til det. Erik Fløan (talk) 09:50, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Jeg har nå sendt følgende e-post til en representant for Nordisk råd:

Hei,

Jeg er langvarig bidragsyter på norsk Wikipedia, og har kommet over Nordisk råds rikholdige bildearkiv på nett, Nordbild. Jeg har tidligere tatt kontakt med en av fotografene, Magnus Fröderberg, for å avklare dette med lisensering og gjenbruk av bildene. Slik jeg har forstått det fra ham så er Nordisk råd innstilt på at bildene kan brukes fritt så lenge den spesifikke fotografen samt Nordisk råd krediteres, altså på linje med det som er beskrevet: "You can search in the image database Nordbild here. The photos can be used freely provided you quote the source (e.g. NN – norden.org)."

Tidligere inneholdt denne lisensen en klausul om at bildene ikke kunne brukes kommersielt eller modifiseres på noen måte, slik at bilder fra Nordisk råd tidligere ble slettet fra Wikipedias bildearkiv, Wikimedia Commons. Nå som klausulen er fjernet dukket dermed saken opp igjen, men vi håper nå å få til en god dialog med dere i Nordisk råd slik at vi forhåpentlig får lov til å bruke bildene. Fröderberg mente at mitt forslag til lisensering på Wikimedia Commons samsvarte med lisenseringen på Nordbild: "This file is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution ShareAlike 3.0 License. In short: you are free to share and make derivative works of the file under the conditions that you appropriately attribute it, and that you distribute it only under a license identical to this one."

Eksempelvis vil bildet av Óli Breckmann, <http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Breckmann.jpg>, kunne brukes av alle, også kommerisielt, så lenge både fotografen Magnus Fröderberg og Nordisk råd er kreditert i umiddelbar nærhet av bildet (vanligvis med en undertekst). Om bildet modifiseres, noe som er usannsynlig men mulig, må Fröderberg og Nordisk råd fortsatt krediteres på samme måte, og man kan ikke skifte lisens. Ergo vil ikke deres rettigheter krenkes om man følger lovverket. Det er nettopp med basis i lovverket at vi innordner alle bilder på Wikimedia Commons med passende lisens, slik at vi må ha slike tilfeller som dette avklart. Jeg sier igjen at det ville være flott om dere aksepterer den lisensen jeg beskrev, på samme måte som at vi på Wikimedia Commons gjør det vi kan for at deres lisenskrav om kreditering oppfylles på alle Wikimedia-prosjekter, inkludert alle språkversjoner av Wikipedia.

Med vennlig hilsen, Erik Fløan

Stort sett bra e-post det der, Erik. Det er bare to små ting jeg ville ha gjort anderledes: Jeg ville ha skrevet klart at Wikipedia / Wikimedia Commons har det som en ufravikelig forutsetning at det skal være lov med kommersiell bruk og modifiseringer (for alle), for slik du formulerte deg virker det som du tar det for gitt at mottageren vet dette. Min erfaring er at svært få er klar over disse kravene, og dermed gir et «klart Wikipedia kan bruke bildene»-svar, noe som er bortkastet tid for begge parter. Den andre tingen er at du burde ha vist til at andre i offentlig sektor har gått med på en Creative Commons-lisens, slik at man viser at dette egentlig ikke er så skummelt. Selv bruker jeg ofte Den norske kirke (se {{Kirkeinfo}}) som eksempel.

Hvis du får et halvveis positivt svar (eller uklart svar) kan det være greit å ta kontakt med Finn R eller meg før du svarer, så kan vi sammen bli enig om hva som er den mest fornuftige strategien. Hilsen --Kjetil_r 17:26, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Skal gjøre det. Har ikke fått noe svar enda, regner med at rådet er nede for påsken. Erik Fløan (talk) 21:55, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Jeg mistenker at Fröderberg gav meg feil adresse. Tror jeg heller forsøker på den som Nordisk råd har oppgitt som presse- og kommunikasjonsansvarlig, Karin Arvidsson, kaa@norden.org. Er det noen som har endringsforslag til brevet nedenfor?

Hei,

Jeg er langvarig bidragsyter på norsk Wikipedia, og har kommet over Nordisk råds rikholdige bildearkiv på nett, Nordbild. Jeg har tidligere tatt kontakt med en av fotografene, Magnus Fröderberg, for å avklare dette med lisensering og gjenbruk av bildene. Slik jeg har forstått det fra ham så er Nordisk råd innstilt på at bildene kan brukes fritt så lenge den spesifikke fotografen samt Nordisk råd krediteres, altså på linje med det som er beskrevet: "You can search in the image database Nordbild here. The photos can be used freely provided you quote the source (e.g. NN – norden.org)."

Tidligere inneholdt denne lisensen en klausul om at bildene ikke kunne brukes kommersielt eller modifiseres på noen måte, slik at bilder fra Nordisk råd tidligere ble slettet fra Wikipedias bildearkiv, Wikimedia Commons. Bilder lagt ut som frie men for ikke-kommersiell bruk er nemlig ikke godtatt som frie nok på Wikimedia Commons. Nå som klausulen er fjernet dukket dermed saken opp igjen, men vi håper nå å få til en god dialog med dere i Nordisk råd slik at vi forhåpentlig får lov til å bruke bildene. Fröderberg mente at mitt forslag til lisensering på Wikimedia Commons samsvarte med lisenseringen på Nordbild: "This file is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution ShareAlike 3.0 License. In short: you are free to share and make derivative works of the file under the conditions that you appropriately attribute it, and that you distribute it only under a license identical to this one."

Flere andre offentlige institusjoner har lagt ut sine bilder under fri lisens slik at de kan brukes av Wikimedia Commons. Mest kjente eksempler er amerikanske føderale institusjoner som Kongressen, Nasjonalbiblioteket og NASA. Amerikanske opphavsrettslover gjør imidlertid at man heller bør trekke paralleller til Den norske kirke. Se <http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Template:Kirkeinfo>. Der oppgis lisensen klart og tydelig (etter noe samme mønster som hos dere i Nordisk råd). Malen er også spesiallaget for Den norske kirkes bilder, slik at disse merkes som klart og tydelig Den norske kirke som kilde. Lisensen er den samme som jeg skisserte ovenfor, Creative Commons Attribution ShareAlike 3.0 (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/deed.no ). Vi på Wikimedia Commons kan selvsagt lage noe lignende for deres bilder.

Eksempelvis vil bildet av Óli Breckmann, <http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Breckmann.jpg>, kunne brukes av alle, også kommersielt, så lenge både fotografen Magnus Fröderberg og Nordisk råd er kreditert i umiddelbar nærhet av bildet (vanligvis med en undertekst). Om bildet modifiseres, må Fröderberg og Nordisk råd fortsatt krediteres på samme måte, og man kan ikke skifte lisens. Ergo vil ikke deres rettigheter krenkes om man følger lovverket. Det er nettopp med basis i lovverket at vi innordner alle bilder på Wikimedia Commons med passende lisens, slik at vi må ha slike tilfeller som dette avklart.

Vi trenger altså en eksplisitt bekreftelse fra dere på at dere med ordlyden "The photos can be used freely provided you quote the source (e.g. NN – norden.org)" aksepterer lisensiering Creative Commons Attribution ShareAlike 3.0 License, enten ved at dere henviser til denne lisensen på deres nettside eller sender meg en e-post som bekrefter at dette er greit. Ta gjerne kontakt om det skulle være noen spørsmål.

Med vennlig hilsen, Erik Fløan

Erik Fløan (talk) 16:42, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Hei Erik, jeg gjorde noen mindre endringer på teksten ovenfor, viktigst siste avsnitt med presisering at vi må ha en eksplisitt tillatelse - først og fremst for å unngå et hyggelig men for oss ubrukelig "Vi synes selvfølgelig at det er helt greit at dere bruker bildene på Wikipedia"-svar. Flott at du følger opp dette. Vennlig hilsen, Finn Rindahl (talk) 18:32, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Takker for det, tror jeg bare sender nå med én gang. Erik Fløan (talk) 20:38, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Etter å ha ikke fått svar fra Arvidsson, så sender jeg brevet til info@norden.org, en slags fellesadresse for hele kommunikasjonsavdelingen deres. Erik Fløan (talk) 14:51, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Nordisk råd utarbeider et svar til oss, som de forventer vil være tilsendt meg innen tirsdag. Erik Fløan (talk) 10:09, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Fint at du holder oss oppdatert. --Kjetil_r 10:25, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Jeg fikk i dag svar fra den første adressen jeg sendte til (som jeg trodde var feil): «Vår bilder är fritt tillgängliga och får spridas fritt så länge källan uppges, Fotografens namn/norden.org. Det innebär att ni på wikipedia gärna får lova att använda våra bilder. Vi vore väldigt tacksamma om ni skulle kunna lägga in en liknande text som den som norska kyrkan har. Vi kommer att ha en intern diskussion om creative commons. Blir det så att vi aktivt kommer att anta creativ commons licens kommer jag att kontakta dig och meddela det.» Basert på ordlyden så er dette en beskjed om å ikke slette bildene, men å opprette en mal slik som Template:Kirkeinfo, og samtidig bare avvente ytterligere avklaringer fra rådet ang. Creative Commons. Erik Fløan (talk) 17:31, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Dette er en beskjed om ikke å slette bildene, men er heller ikke en klar fri lisens. De unngår å eksplisitt si at bildene kan brukes av kommersielle aktører og modifiseres, og dette må vi få klarhet i. Du kan jo enten følge opp saken selv, eller så kan sikkert Finn og jeg overta kontakten hvis du tror det er bedre. Mvh. --Kjetil_r 21:39, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Som sagt så skrev han at saken diskuteres internt i Nordisk råd, så jeg har stor tro på at vi vil få et positivt svar om vi venter litt til. Erik Fløan (talk) 07:11, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Så, har du hørt noe mer her? Slik {{Nordic Council}} står nå er den jo faktisk ikke riktig, da Nordisk Råd faktisk ikke har gått med på noen Creative Commons-lisens? --Kjetil_r 22:06, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

«Vår bilder är fritt tillgängliga och får spridas fritt så länge källan uppges, Fotografens namn/norden.org. Det innebär att ni på wikipedia gärna får lova att använda våra bilder. Vi vore väldigt tacksamma om ni skulle kunna lägga in en liknande text som den som norska kyrkan har. Vi kommer att ha en intern diskussion om creative commons. Blir det så att vi aktivt kommer att anta creativ commons licens kommer jag att kontakta dig och meddela det.» Altså går Nordisk Råd med på å la oss lisensere bildene deres som Creative Commons her (og helst med den nevnte malen), men de har så langt ikke tenkt å endre ordlyden på nettsidene sine. Jeg kan be dem om å sende inn en bekreftelse på lisensmalen til OTRS. Erik Fløan (talk) 16:44, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Jeg tolker ikke denne teksten som at de går med på en Creative Commons-lisens på bildene her. Vi setter aldri på en slik lisens med mindre de eksplisitt sier det. Jeg vil også tro at «Vår bilder är fritt tillgängliga och får spridas fritt så länge källan uppges» er for vagt til at bildene godtas, jeg ville i alle fall ha argumentert for en sletting i en eventuell slettediskusjon. Grunnen er at de ikke eksplisitt godtar avledede verk (engelsk: «derivative works»), noe Wikimedias lisenspolitkk har som et klart krav.

Jeg forslår derfor at du nok en gang spør dem om de vil gå med på «Creative Commons Attribution 3.0». Hvis de ikke ønsker dette, så kan du eventuelt få dem til å eksplisitt si at de godtar alle typer bruk samt modifikasjon av bildene. Mvh. --Kjetil_r 18:07, 8 June 2009 (UTC)Rettet skrivefeil 21:52, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Den er grei. Erik Fløan (talk) 21:28, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Johannes Jansson i Nordisk Råd svarer: «Som jag tidigare svarat dig så får bilderna användas fritt. Angående Creative Commons har vi inte tagit något beslut om vi skall anslutas oss till dess regelverk ännu. Just nu under semestertider är det svårt att få till möte med alla berörda personer. Återkommer med svar så fort vi vet.» Med andre ord vil det være dumt å slette bildene nå. Jeg har også på følelsen av at vi har fått dem på gli. Erik Fløan (talk) 18:59, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Jeg vil tro at det er litt 50/50 om de går med på en fri lisens. Vi får avvente et par måneder og se hva som skjer. --Kjetil_r 21:52, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

And? Something happened? If I understand this correctly this is now pending for 2 1/2 year, had several deletion and undeletion discussions and... time to decide? --Martin H. (talk) 15:02, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Could you please summarise in English what is the present status of the template and the communication with the Nordic Council? How I see it how is that they allow the free use of their pictures as far the source is stated. Thanks, --Antissimo (talk) 16:52, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

The current state is that the Nordic Council allows us using the pictures with the license Creative Commons Attribution ShareAlike 3.0, preferably with the template known as Template:Nordic Council. They seem to have realized the limitation of both non-commercial and non-derivative restrictions, and have eventually removed that from their websites. Now it says: "Her kan du søge i vores billeddatabase. Billederne kan frit benyttes forudsat at du nævner billedkilden (f.eks. NN - norden.org)", which means: "Here you can search in our picture database. The pictures may be freely used as long as you state the source (f.ex. NN - norden.org)". They were supposed to discuss to mention the license CC-by-sa-3.0 in the text, but that doesn't seem to ever has happened. Anyway, they allow us to continue using the pictures with the conditions of CC-by-sa-3.0 (as it now fits perfectly with their stated conditions too). I hope this can be a little helpful. An eventual new contact with the Nordic Council will have to be in January anyway, because of the holidays. Personally, I think this case can be closed with decision that we agree with the Nordic Council on their conditions and vice versa. Erik Fløan (talk) 19:33, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Template:Nordic Council is now changed to be just a custom version of Template:Attribution, which got the exact same restriction (attribution). In other words, the problem with CC-by-sa-3.0 is solved. Erik Fløan (talk) 00:28, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, the changed template indeed better fits the statement. Well, the problem was, that it was not allowed to modify the iamges and that was the only (documented) deletion reason. The current statement have not changed on this, so in fact the situation is exactly the same as 2 1/2 years ago, republish or reuse does not mean change/edit/modify/alter the image. Would be good to have this locked in OTRS to finally solve the problem. --Martin H. (talk) 02:23, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

I can try to get that in January, when the holidays ends. Erik Fløan (talk) 11:53, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

We should change the template until this issue is resolved. The template currently sates that "manipulation […] is accepted", something that might be incorrect. --Kjetil_r 16:11, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Hi Efloean! Could you please contact the Nordic Council to resolve this copyright issue? Tell me if I can help in anything! Best, --Antissimo (talk) 21:13, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Email now sent, waiting for answer. ;-) Erik F (talk) 14:32, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Same email sendt to Karin Arvidsson, Head of Communications, as I haven't yet received an answer from Johannes Jansson. Erik F (talk) 20:11, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Jansson says the Nordic Council will give us an answer within 14 days. Erik F (talk) 10:08, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Answer from Jansson: "Våra bilder komemr i fortsättningen var tillgängliga för fritt bruk. Är fint att ni kan använda bilderna utan att de ligger under creative commons. Vi kommer eventuellt att diskutera en eventuell licensiering längre fram. Beträffande manipulering så är det ok att våra bilder manipuleras. Det måste dock framgå att bilden är manipulerad och att originalet finns på www.norden.org." That means the images can be stored on Commons with the current licence, and that the images can be manipulated as long as the original source (norden.org) is attributed. The case seems to be closed for now. Erik F (talk) 15:42, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Great job, thanks for it, and also to Mr. Jansson and the Nordic Council! I think only one more thing is left to close the issue: see Commons:OTRS. As I see it is not complicated: you have to forward the e-mail with the permission to an e-mail address, and put a template on the image in question (here I think to Template:Nordic Council), and they will do the rest. Just to make sure this question does not arise any more! ;) Best, --Antissimo (talk) 17:43, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Deletion

Hi,

 Done I have deleted your picture. Cdlt, VIGNERON * ^discut. 13:37, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. :) Erik Fløan (talk) 14:08, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

File:S. Joensen-Mikines.JPG

File:S. Joensen-Mikines.JPG has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry. If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues. Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

-- fetchcomms☛ 02:21, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

File:Sara Christie.jpg

---

There seems to be a problem regarding the description and/or licensing of this particular file. It has been found that you've added in the image's description only a Template that's not a license and although it provides useful information about the image, it's not a valid license. Could you please resolve this problem, adding the license in the image linked above? You can edit the description page and change the text. Uploading a new version of the file does not change the description of the file. This page may give you more hints on which license to choose. Thank you.

This message was added automatically by Nikbot, if you need some help about it, ask its master (Filnik) or go to the Commons:Help desk. --Filnik 11:20, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Tip: Categorizing images

---

Hello, Efloean!

Tip: Add categories to your files

Thanks a lot for contributing to the Wikimedia Commons! Here's a tip to make your uploads more useful: Why not add some categories to describe them? This will help more people to find and use them.

Here's how:

1) If you're using the UploadWizard, you can add categories to each file when you describe it. Just click "more options" for the file and add the categories which make sense:

2) You can also pick the file from your list of uploads, edit the file description page, and manually add the category code at the end of the page.

[[Category:Category name]]

For example, if you are uploading a diagram showing the orbits of comets, you add the following code:

[[Category:Astronomical diagrams]]

[[Category:Comets]]

This will make the diagram show up in the categories "Astronomical diagrams" and "Comets".

When picking categories, try to choose a specific category ("Astronomical diagrams") over a generic one ("Illustrations").

Thanks again for your uploads! More information about categorization can be found in Commons:Categories, and don't hesitate to leave a note on the help desk.

CategorizationBot (talk) 11:44, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

• Image:Kristin-Clemet.jpg was uncategorized on 22 February 2011 CategorizationBot (talk) 11:44, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
• Image:Torstein Slungård 1993.jpg was uncategorized on 23 December 2011 CategorizationBot (talk) 11:12, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

File:Quayle_desert_storm.jpg

File:Quayle_desert_storm.jpg has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry. If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues. Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

Martin H. (talk) 22:23, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

File:Ole_Erichsen_(ca._1930).jpg

File:Ole_Erichsen_(ca._1930).jpg has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry. If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues. Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

Armbrust (talk) 16:41, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

File:John Lyng og Kåre Willoch, Stortinget (1967).jpg

File:John Lyng og Kåre Willoch, Stortinget (1967).jpg has been marked as a possible copyright violation. Wikimedia Commons only accepts free content—that is, images and other media files that can be used by anyone, for any purpose. Traditional copyright law does not grant these freedoms, and unless noted otherwise, everything you find on the web is copyrighted and not permitted here. For details on what is acceptable, please read Commons:Licensing. You may also find Commons:Copyright rules useful, or you can ask questions about Commons policies at the Commons:Help desk. If you are the copyright holder and the creator of the file, please read Commons:But it's my own work! for tips on how to provide evidence of that. The file you added has been deleted. If you have written permission from the copyright holder, please have them send us a free license release via COM:VRT. If you believe that the deletion was not in accordance with policy, you may request undeletion. (It is not necessary to request undeletion if using VRT; the file will be automatically restored at the conclusion of the process.) Warning: Wikimedia Commons takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

 

Martin H. (talk) 23:22, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

File tagging File:Oppdal sentrum old.jpg

This media may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading File:Oppdal sentrum old.jpg. This media is missing permission information. A source is given, but there is no proof that the author or copyright holder agreed to license the file under the given license. Please provide a link to an appropriate webpage with license information, or ask the author or copyright holder to send an email with copy of a written permission to VRT (permissions-commons@wikimedia.org). You may still be required to go through this procedure even if you are the author yourself; please see Commons:But it's my own work! for more details. After you emailed permission, you may replace the {{No permission since}} tag with {{subst:PP}} on file description page. Alternatively, you may click on "Challenge speedy deletion" below the tag if you wish to provide an argument why evidence of permission is not necessary in this case. Please see this page for more information on how to confirm permission, or if you would like to understand why we ask for permission when uploading work that is not your own, or work which has been previously published (regardless of whether it is your own). Warning: unless the permission information is given, the file may be deleted after seven days. Thank you.

 

JuTa 21:56, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

File:Speech Quayle.jpg

File:Speech Quayle.jpg has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry. If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues. Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

Ytoyoda (talk) 14:55, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

File:Elisabeth Dale og Tore Opdal Hansen.jpg

---

A file that you uploaded to Wikimedia Commons from Flickr, File:Elisabeth Dale og Tore Opdal Hansen.jpg, was found available on Flickr by an administrator or reviewer under the license Noncommercial (), No derivative works (), or All Rights Reserved (), which isn't compatible with Wikimedia Commons, per the licensing policy. The file has been deleted. Commons:Flickr files/Appeal for license change has information about sending the Flickr user an appeal asking for the license to be changed. Only Flickr images tagged as (CC BY), (CC BY-SA), (CC0) and (PDM) are allowed on Wikimedia Commons. If the Flickr user has changed the license of the Flickr image, feel free to ask an administrator to restore the file, or start an undeletion request.

Ww2censor (talk) 20:57, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

File:Logo-runavik.png

Hi. You uploaded this files in 2009 and added yourself as the author. The version on fo.wikipedia was uploaded by Arne List in 2005. Do you work at Runavíkar kommuna? Perhaps you could have a look and check/fix the description? --MGA73 (talk) 20:12, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Hi, MGA73. I don't work at Runavíkar kommuna. I'm certainly not the author, so I guess I made a mistake at the time. As far as we don't have a confirmation of a free licence from Runavíkar kommuna in OTRS, we should delete it. Neither can I find a statement at their website. It won't be a great loss for us, after all, as Runavíkar kommuna have modernized their logo now. (See in the top left.) Erik F (talk) 11:07, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Copyright status: File:Olav Bergersen.jpg

This media may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading File:Olav Bergersen.jpg. I notice that the file page either doesn't contain enough information about the license or it contains contradictory information about the license, so the copyright status is unclear. If you created this file yourself, then you must provide a valid copyright tag. For example, you can tag it with {{self|GFDL|cc-by-sa-all}} to release it under the multi-license GFDL plus Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike All-version license or you can tag it with {{PD-self}} to release it into the public domain. (See Commons:Copyright tags for the full list of license tags that you can use.) If you did not create the file yourself or if it is a derivative of another work that is possibly subject to copyright protection, then you must specify where you found it (e.g. usually a link to the web page where you got it), you must provide proof that it has a license that is acceptable for Commons (e.g. usually a link to the terms of use for content from that page), and you must add an appropriate license tag. If you did not create the file yourself and the specific source and license information is not available on the web, you must obtain permission through the VRT system and follow the procedure described there. Note that any unsourced or improperly licensed files will be deleted one week after they have been marked as lacking proper information, as described in criteria for deletion. If you have uploaded other files, please confirm that you have provided the proper information for those files, too. If you have any questions about licenses please ask at Commons:Village pump/Copyright or see our help pages. Thank you.

And also:

• File:Olav Bergersen (2).jpg
• File:Sverre Klingenberg.jpg

I removed {{PD-old-70}}, {{PD-old}} or similar templates from the files whose authors who died less then 70 years ago. Now the files have no license and unless it is fixed will be deleted in a week. If you know of other reason why those files are in public domain please feel free to add a new license template and alert me and I will remove {{No license}} tag. If you have any questions please check my FAQ or contact me on my talk page. Yours sincerely, Jarekt (talk) 12:18, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

File:Pia Olsen Dyhr, pressefoto.jpg

File:Pia Olsen Dyhr, pressefoto.jpg has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry. If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues. Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

Fnielsen (talk) 22:19, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

File:Erik Fløan.jpg

File:Erik Fløan.jpg has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry. If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues. Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

Kaulder (contribs | talk) 06:42, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

Copyright status: File:Joen Rasmussen, ca. 1918.jpg

This media may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading File:Joen Rasmussen, ca. 1918.jpg. I notice that the file page either doesn't contain enough information about the license or it contains contradictory information about the license, so the copyright status is unclear. If you created this file yourself, then you must provide a valid copyright tag. For example, you can tag it with {{self|GFDL|cc-by-sa-all}} to release it under the multi-license GFDL plus Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike All-version license or you can tag it with {{PD-self}} to release it into the public domain. (See Commons:Copyright tags for the full list of license tags that you can use.) If you did not create the file yourself or if it is a derivative of another work that is possibly subject to copyright protection, then you must specify where you found it (e.g. usually a link to the web page where you got it), you must provide proof that it has a license that is acceptable for Commons (e.g. usually a link to the terms of use for content from that page), and you must add an appropriate license tag. If you did not create the file yourself and the specific source and license information is not available on the web, you must obtain permission through the VRT system and follow the procedure described there. Note that any unsourced or improperly licensed files will be deleted one week after they have been marked as lacking proper information, as described in criteria for deletion. If you have uploaded other files, please confirm that you have provided the proper information for those files, too. If you have any questions about licenses please ask at Commons:Village pump/Copyright or see our help pages. Thank you.

Yours sincerely, Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 03:11, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

File:Bringumynd av Jóannes Paturssyni.JPG

File:Bringumynd av Jóannes Paturssyni.JPG has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry. If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues. Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

Ww2censor (talk) 09:57, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

File tagging File:Norveg 07 16 - Foto Steinar Johansen.jpg

This media was probably deleted.

Thanks for uploading File:Norveg 07 16 - Foto Steinar Johansen.jpg. This media is missing permission information. A source is given, but there is no proof that the author or copyright holder agreed to license the file under the given license. Please provide a link to an appropriate webpage with license information, or ask the author or copyright holder to send an email with copy of a written permission to VRT (permissions-commons@wikimedia.org). You may still be required to go through this procedure even if you are the author yourself; please see Commons:But it's my own work! for more details. After you emailed permission, you may replace the {{No permission since}} tag with {{subst:PP}} on file description page. Alternatively, you may click on "Challenge speedy deletion" below the tag if you wish to provide an argument why evidence of permission is not necessary in this case. Please see this page for more information on how to confirm permission, or if you would like to understand why we ask for permission when uploading work that is not your own, or work which has been previously published (regardless of whether it is your own). The file probably has been deleted. If you sent a permission, try to send it again after 14 days. Do not re-upload. When the VRT-member processes your mail, the file can be undeleted. Additionally you can request undeletion here, providing a link to the File-page on Commons where it was uploaded ([[:File:Norveg 07 16 - Foto Steinar Johansen.jpg]]) and the above demanded information in your request.

 

Secondarywaltz (talk) 00:50, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

Cropping images

By way of information for the future, when you want to crop an image, like you did with File:Eliseus Müller (067-0005).jpg I suggest you use the CropTool that can be activated in your commons Preferences, under Gadgets. The CropTool will then appears in the left side of your screen. It saves everyone a lot of time because it transfers all the correct and appropriate information into the cropped image, such as source, license, author, etc. It even leaves a backlink to the original and visa versa so long as the original has been positively reviewed. That way all the proper information is there and does not need to be reviewed. If you are just cropping a small bit of the image like a frame you can decide to overwrite the original image but for more major crops, like this one, you should upload the cropped version as a separate new image, but you have a choice. I hope you can see how everyone can save time and frustration by using CropTool. Good luck. Ww2censor (talk) 21:10, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

Copyright status: File:Grøntvedt-brødrenes laksemerd (1972).jpg

Copyright status: File:Grøntvedt-brødrenes laksemerd (1972).jpg

This media may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading File:Grøntvedt-brødrenes laksemerd (1972).jpg. I notice that the file page either doesn't contain enough information about the license or it contains contradictory information about the license, so the copyright status is unclear. If you created this file yourself, then you must provide a valid copyright tag. For example, you can tag it with {{self|GFDL|cc-by-sa-all}} to release it under the multi-license GFDL plus Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike All-version license or you can tag it with {{PD-self}} to release it into the public domain. (See Commons:Copyright tags for the full list of license tags that you can use.) If you did not create the file yourself or if it is a derivative of another work that is possibly subject to copyright protection, then you must specify where you found it (e.g. usually a link to the web page where you got it), you must provide proof that it has a license that is acceptable for Commons (e.g. usually a link to the terms of use for content from that page), and you must add an appropriate license tag. If you did not create the file yourself and the specific source and license information is not available on the web, you must obtain permission through the VRT system and follow the procedure described there. Note that any unsourced or improperly licensed files will be deleted one week after they have been marked as lacking proper information, as described in criteria for deletion. If you have uploaded other files, please confirm that you have provided the proper information for those files, too. If you have any questions about licenses please ask at Commons:Village pump/Copyright or see our help pages. Thank you.

Jcb (talk) 22:58, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

File:Wilhelm Stoppenbrink.JPG

File:Wilhelm Stoppenbrink.JPG has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry. If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues. Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

Jcb (talk) 17:10, 7 May 2019 (UTC)